Debated: Alief Taylor High School (2004- 2007), University of Texas (2007-2010)
Coached: Dulles High School (2007-2011)

Winston Churchill High School (2011-2012)

Hedrickson High School (Present)

If you are looking at my paradigm from https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Agha%2C+Samin the way I think about debates has changed since my Freshman year of college when I created that wiki. 

Initial Notes

-DO NOT CLIP CARDS - I have had to adjudicate several debates these past years where it was a question if cards are cut to stop this I ask to be put on the email chain samin07@gmail.com and actually mark your evidence in your speech document and send out a marked version of your speech document after the speech is done.

-Every argument you make must have a claim AND a warrant – saying that the impact to your advantage is “faster than the disad” is a claim, you need a reason WHY THAT IS TRUE. This becomes increasingly problematic in debates with multiple interacting parts such as a politics disad – you should make sure when you are extending “X bill will pass” uniqueness claims, you give reasons WHY THAT IS TRUE.

-TECH OVER TRUTH --- although some arguments are very silly, if you drop them – they are considered truth. Whether or not reading these arguments will adversely affect your speaker points is up to how well I thought the position was executed. That being said, most of the positions that come to mind when someone says “tech>truth” can easily be answered without evidence.

- Accomplish something in your cross-x time, keep me interested, have an agenda during your cx and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

-If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.

-Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.

-Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.

-The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

- The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Technical Issues
-I won’t take prep time for flashing unless you are taking forever OR I think you are prepping when you are supposed to be flashing. (This may change the more I judge)

-I am pretty lenient on emergency situations – if you are having a massive coughing fit, or if your computer/stand breaks, just let me know and I can see what we can do. 

Topicality

Generic T shells are not something that hold my attention, however, a specific definition or a T in tandem with another position to get a link, is strategic. If you are going to go for T, then go for it starting in the block and make it a legitimate option and I will evaluate it. I find this to be an underused strategy

Disads

If you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Counterplans

I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PICs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIC. However, make it clear that it is a PIC and explain why it solves the aff. Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

Kritiks

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all, there are still many kritiks that I have trouble understanding. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.

Clash of Civ. debates

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

I understand that I coach teams that are much more on the side of reading K affs that does not mean a good framework strategy is something I won’t vote for. I have voted for Framework more than teams that doing have an instrumental action.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments. 

Theory

I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want.  I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things

For the legalization topic:

Very little topic knowledge. I will probably need some help in speeches and cross-x on the operational relationship between the laws, concepts, and categories you're referencing.

Argument stuff:

There is such a thing as zero risk

T – Clear distinctions supported by grammar/government definitions are usually more compelling than limits, but rarely backed up by good evidence – ergo, cards are a big deal

Links must be unique, but uniqueness does not “determine” or necessarily strengthen the link argument

Conditionality – 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is dumb

Aff leaning on counterplan competition, neg leaning on counterplan legitimacy
2a’s should talk about 1 – what the basis for competition should be, 2 – what the negative justifies and why that’s bad, 3 – why the neg’s model of opportunity cost is rigged

2n’s should 1 – read definitions of words in the plan text, not just the resolution, 2 – establish the relevance of the difference between the plan and the counterplan to the topic, 3 – establish the desirability of testing the difference between the plan and the counterplan to debate

Word PICs – seem trivial unless the aff makes an argument that discourse is important to their advocacy

Performance – I’m pretty good for the neg on framework, but negative teams often advance standards that are easily impact turned – e.g. limits, policy education, etc. – one way the 2n can hedge his or her bets is to extend impact defense to the case

Stuff you shouldn’t drop no matter what – value to life, turns case, role of the ballot

Speaker point stuff:

Be nice (or polite if you can’t manage nice), act like you want to be there
Cross-x – reference it in speeches, ask about relevant issues
Go for defense – talk about what their cards say, don’t say, why that matters
Don’t steal prep – this means stop writing/typing while the jump drive is being passed around
Even ifs – recognizing where you’re behind and adjusting
Blowing off stupidity – A-spec comes to mind
Clarity is very very important, excessive volume is just annoying

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

If you have any questions, please email me - paulmbanks at gmail.

I did policy debate at Harvard for several years, ending in 2016. I study the history of science. I don't know much about this year's high school topic. I have debated on both sides of the 'topicality/framework' debate in college and I went for a diverse set of arguments on the negative. 

I have few strong predispositions; all of them can be changed with an argument. The only non-negotiable is that I'll protect the 2NR. I read very few cards when deciding most debates and they rarely figure prominently in my decision. I think a lot about the debate as it is progressing.  I always take several minutes after I decide to think about my decision and try to argue with myself against it, using every argument in the likely-losing team's final rebuttal.  

Impacting arguments is the most important thing to do. I don't like having to fill in the blanks and sort out what it means for me to, say, adopt some particular perspective when judging a debate. If I should be a policymaker, what should I prioritize? Often teams assume that winning one argument (such as "the judge should be a policymaker") implies another thing (such as "the judge should only care about geopolitical consequences").  That explains how I think about "dropped arguments" and "concessions" as well.  I'm very good for teams that understand which claims the other team is winning and construct a coherent ballot assuming those claims are somewhat true.

I will not follow along with speech documents. I care about evidence and expertise, but only insofar as it's in your speeches.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

If you can’t beat a “bad” argument then you are a bad advocate for your cause (and you should lose).

Don't expect me to understand or apply the necessary context to certain words or catch phrases that you might use.

I will try to be fair in evaluating whatever you run. Impact calculus is important.

I think there are a number of ways debate can be done really well (my favorite thing about debate).

I prefer you do what you are best at instead of what you think is best for me. Make me adapt to you.

T

Tell me why your interpretation is better for debate. Do comparative impact calculus. What impacts are most important (what framework should the judge utilize when evaluating T impacts).

K

The more specific the links the happier I'll be. I think perms should tend towards utilizing the language of the alternative text and away from the generic "do both" or "plan and every other instance". I find a lot of my decisions usually revolve around a framework argument.

K Affs

I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.

CP

The more of the aff it includes the more skeptical I am of the CP’s legitimacy. Competition/Theory arguments are best when based on evidence (especially topic ev). I'm definitely in the "neg conditionality has gotten out of control" camp--1cp 1k probably ok, 1 CP that does the aff, 1 k with an alt that could do the aff and a word PIC definitely absolutely not legit (affs need to learn how to go for theory). Theory requires development and impact calculus.

Other

I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

Hello, friend.

I am non-interventionist.  It is up to the debaters to persuade me that they/he/she have won the round.  That being said, do not assume that I understand jargon, acronyms or shorthand as substitutes for fully developed arguments.  I have no ideology as to speed, but I will make no apologies if I fail to understand speeches.  In L-D I vote as guided by the ballot and/or league rules.  As a default, LD is a value based debate and I will vote accordingly.  In CX, there is more room for the debaters to define the round.  In PFD, because there is no burden of proof, I will vote in whichever direction I was more persuaded from the outset of the round.

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC.  McDonogh won the TOC in 2007.  I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

I haven't judged this year so don't assume I know as much as you do.

Specificity and accuracy are crucial to good debate. The more specific your evidence, plan, etc. the better off you will be. I firmly believe from a strategic (generally speaking) and educational perspective substantive, specific, well-evidenced clash should be something to strive for, not run from.

The more accurate your retracing of debate is in your final rebuttal the more convincing your speech will be -- did they (really) drop something, and what does it mean?

If the 2ac says the words "not intrinsic" and the block drops it, that's probably not game over because the 2ac did not make a full argument. If the 1ar blows it up, the neg gets one last chance to answer it. This standard applies in other instances. I firmly believe debate should not be about cheap shots but about substantive engagement. That being said, I highly value technical debating as long as you are making full, coherent arguments.

I'll listen to anything but everyone has biases. I'll be transparent and say that I find affirmatives which focus on defending the resolution more pursasive than those that don't. I'm not telling you to debate a certain way, but I believe debate as an activity is most productive when two teams square off with the same idea as to -- generally -- what is the topic at hand is.

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

Jason Clarke

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach

Policy Paradigm:

I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.

I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?

If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.

I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.

LD Paradigm

I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.

I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, in LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot.

PF Paradigm

Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.

Hi, I am Abraham Corrigan. I debated for 4 years in high school at HF & GBS, then for 4 years at Gonzaga, then I coached debate for Northwestern, University of Kentucky, Wake Forest & a bunch of different high schools. Here are some things to consider when deciding if you want to pref me;

- I will do my best to judge the round based on the tools provided to me by the debaters. I have judged all spectrum of arguments and will do my best to fairly evaluate whatever argument you make.

- Cross-x is my favorite part of the debate. It's the only time where you can make your opponents to account for the things they say. It wins/loses debates. I flow it.

- I will not read your evidence to help you. If I read your evidence it is either to resolve a factual dispute over what the card says, or to see if it is worth getting the cite/stealing for a team I coach.

- I think probably about 90% of what happens on both sides of the framework debate is nonsense. Tell me what your deal is and why it's better than their deal. Also, fiat means political imagination.

- It's hard for me to ever imagine voting that theory is a reason to reject the team. However, I am very willing to entertain alternative strategic consequences such as advocating permutations, severance, getting stuck with the counterplan etc. Make theory a way to get back to the substantive debating and I will like it more. Alternatively, tell me why it matters.

- Topicality is fine, but tell me why stuff matters. Impact topicality like you would any other argument and give me substance to why I need to prefer your interpretation.

- My favorite arguments teach me things or are structured in interesting ways.

- Treat each other with respect.

Explain it so a 12 y/o could understand and you should be fine. The 12 y/o is as intelligent as you are, maybe even smarter, probably less prone to the self-sabotage of needing to be the smartest person in the room that embarrasses most debaters away from asking the stupidest, most rigorous questions (of themselves and others). There's just a knowledge gap. Would the words you choose equip an audience to effectively explain the concepts you need understood to others? You're not being evaluated as a student—even though close study is indispensable. It doesn't matter that you get it. You're being evaluated as a teacher whose job it is to teach other teachers. Good luck!

I will choose from among the arguments presented to me.  I pay close attention and keep an accurate flow of the debate.  Both are important to me.  Cross examination exchanges are important as well in shaping how I view arguments and debates.  Consequently, I usually have thoughts about who won the debate immediately after its conclusion.  Then my decision making process goes something like this:  (1) who  do I think won and why?  (2)  does that team think they won for this reason?  (3) why does this team team think they won?  (4)  Are they correct?  (5)  why does the other team think they won?  Are they correct? (6) who has the better claim to victory?  (7)  Decide.  (8)  what will be the losing teams complaint and what will I say?  (9) Vote.  10.  Deliver.

I vote for plans, counterplans, interpretations, performances, alternatives, permutations and presumption.  You should be clear about what you are asking me to vote for.  Know your plan, interpretation, etc.  Know the other team's interpretation, permutation, etc.  I usually start with a very narrow question to resolve a debate and they center around these issues.  I usually ignore role of the ballot arguments except and unless it helps me resolve an otherwise irresolvable debate.  I will usually just dismiss these arguments.

As a judge in a competitve academic activity I find that maintaining fairness is a paramount concern.  Deciding these issues usually take precenden over other issues because as ther judge I am the only protection that eitther team has against unfair practices and these matters must be resolved immediately, in the round.  Education is an important but secondary concern for me in my role as judge.  It's a primary concern of mine as coach.  You will notice that my decisions focus exclusively on who I voted for and why and rarely on what I think either team could do better or where either team or debaters came up short.  I will talk about these things if asked, but I am primarly concerned with delivering a correct decision that resonably honors both team's expectations.  A decision that is fair.

Card clipping:  I have been convinced that this is an important thing.  If you are caught card clipping in any debate that I am judging I will vote againtst you and give you 0 speaker points and ensure that you receive any and all of the proper punishment.  However, anyone who accuses another debater of card clipping in any ddebate that I am judging will be held to an incredibly high burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence.  That's something less than beyond a resonable doubt, but should still effectively deter anyone from making any weak accusations.  I would much rather not have to decide this debate.  Also, it would help me and you significantly if you included a materiality argument when making such an accusation.  I.e. the other team clipped cards AND it's materially impacting the outcome of this debate.  This is the equivalent of an in round abuse requirement.  

Lastly, I do not vote for critiques of performances in front of white audiences.  I am not a white audience.  You must take note of this when you debate.  Even if there are white people around, they don't matter to me as a judge (even on a panel).

Nicholas Fiori

Hunter College/The New School

Policy Debate Coach

Years judging: 13

Feel free to run whatever you want in front of me. I believe that judging is about evaluating the arguments made in the round while recognizing the impossibility of strict objectivity. Adjudication inevitably involves filtering the round through one's ethical lens and orientation towards debate and the world at large. Debate can only stay relevant and generative by responding to challenges leveraged against it by debaters and coaches. These challenges require my radical openness and fair, thoughtful consideration of the arguments made in the debate.

I will evaluate my flow and then call for relevant cards.

If you think an argument is a round winner it should be in your final rebuttal, do not assume I will evaluate an argument implicitly extended in a piece of evidence. Extension of specific warrants, not just tags and cites, is preferable. I am not the best at flowing author names so make sure evidence is referenced in some other way as well.

I will try to list my predispositions below. If you believe the debate or an argument should be evaluated differently make that part of the debate and I will adjust my calculus accordingly.

Framework: I enter the debate assuming that the affirmative should have a plan/advocacy/political position from which contestation can be grounded. I default to whatever framework is presented, explicitly or implicitly, by the affirmative. The negative gets whatever the aff doesn’t do and should argue why the aff is a bad idea and/or offer a competing policy/alternative advocacy/political program.

If you believe the debate should have an alternative framework, the outcome of the debate over that framework will ultimately determine my lens for evaluating the round.

Topicality: I will default to evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations if no other lens for evaluation is presented in the debate. Topicality arguments that are divorced from a discussion of the actual debate season are increasingly unpersuasive.

Theory: When logical, my default on theory is that it is a reason to reject the argument not the team. If you think it is a voting issue, say that and give me a good reason. Slow down on individual arguments. If a theory argument is dropped but he offending team, extended properly, and actually applies to something the other team has done in the debate, it will most likely determine the way I vote. However, dropped theory arguments that do not actually respond to something the other team has done in the round will automatically determine by ballot.

Impact Evaluation: I think offense/defense is mostly inevitable and that the arguments in the debate either fall into that matrix or change how they are evaluated. However, that does not mean I do not believe that a team cannot win zero risk of a scenario. My threshold is relatively high, but I find 100% defense argument increasingly persuasive.

If you disagree with any of my own pre-dispositions, you should make that part of the debate. The above is merely for you to understand where I start from as a judge, not where I end up when I go about deciding the round.

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

andres.gannon [at] gmail.com - Updated 11/09/2013

I am not altering the manner in which I give speaker points unless the tournament provides a particular set of guidelines, recommendations, or suggested metrics for points.

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (big picture):

- It is productive and possible for all people to have an opinion about things the federal government is doing and should do

- Warranted arguments made from personal experience are not inherently less persuasive than warranted arguments made from those who professionally study the issues we debate, but arguments about the broader accuracy, applicability, and  relevance of a personal experience to the broader issues in question should be debated in a productive fashion

- Offense-defense obsession counterproductively incentives a race to hyperbole. I won't give you full weight of an impact just because its dropped, you have to persuade me. An argument must exceed the threshold of being a credible, coherent, warranted, and plausible warrant before being one that helps you win the debate
- I've never been convinced any aff or DA actually accessed extinction of the human race. People are more concerned with the "terminal" part of their impact than they should be.
- The most important skill we acquire from debate is learning how to make and evaluate decisions in a way that is applicable to life outside of debate. Teams that win debates oriented around this question are those that convince me their model of debate is the most productive means of doing this. (http://t23367.education-region-usa-edebate.educationtalks.info/challenge-to-the-community-t23367.html)
- Debate needs to be more technical and specialized when it comes to discussing federal policies. The issues we discuss are incredibly complex. We should dive into that, not shy away from it (http://osdir.com/ml/education.region.usa.edebate/2007-06/msg00001.html)
- Try or die is a peculiar way of making decisions
- Impact and impact defense evidence are one of the most useful things to debate when it comes to education about public policy

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (small picture):

- Winning uniqueness does not mean the link turn isn't true/your link is true
- Counterplans that fiat an actor other than that of the resolution are not productive for debate
- Affs don't get to define the words in their plan in whatever manner is most convenient. Evidence gets to define words from the plan.
- Many impact turns to advantages are not intrinsic
- Arbitrary roles of the ballot are not persuasive. An issue being important doesn't mean it is a good role of the ballot
- Feasibility is a factor in determining the desirability of K alternatives
- Perms are a better way to eliminate unproductive counterplan discussions than theory

Logistics:

- Debate should be a safe space. Hostility, vulgar language, unnecessary antagonism, aggression, and patronization will not be appreciated
- I may want speech docs as the debate progresses
- I don't want it to be your job to monitor for card clipping. You debate, I'll enforce the rules
- Prep time stops when the jumpdrive is on your opponents hand
- You are not helping your partner's cross-x when you get involved
- I'd rather hear your cards than call for them after the debate

Yes email chain: lincolngarrett49@gmail.com

https://www.debatemusings.org/home/site-purpose-judging-debates

AFF on T

NEG on conditionality, but even I have my limit (more than 3, no evidence for a bunch of them, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding 2NC cps). NEGs are less good at defending their egregiousness in my recent experience.

I will kick the CP if I think it is worse than the status quo. A neg team doesn't have to say "judge kick" and the AFF isn't going to convince me I shouldn't do this.

I reject the argument and not the team for most every other theoretical objection to a CP.

Will vote on K's. Will care about if the plan is a good idea even if the AFF can't physially make it happen.

Don't have to read a plan, but merely saying the res is bad and dropping stuff will lead to L's.

I am not in the market to award AFF vagueness or poor explanations of cases until the 2AR

Evidence quality outweighs evidence quantity.

Years of Experience: 10+ (coaching and debating)
School affiliated with: Bedford Academy High School

I am a teacher at Bedford Academy HS, coaching a brand new team. I have debated and coached on every level: HS, MS, and college. I tend to see myself as a judge who is open to what you tell me to vote on. However, I want clean debates, clearly articulated arguments, and good decorum. In saying that, I like very specific debates on many of the issues that plague this nation's education system. Leave you generic strategies at home and come with some creative strategies that really push the critical thinking skills inside of the round.

• Topicality: T is for me is a hit or miss. If it is explained well and the argumentation is strong, then I will vote on it. I will never default to judge intervention. The topicality debate should develop itself. Abuse stories, especially, need to be proven to me, i.e. in order to win on topicality, I need an explicit description of how the abuse manifests itself in the round. If none of these things happen, I will not vote on it. Make the extra effort to explain either:

a. Why the affirmative's interpretation of the resolution is problematic OR

b. Why the framers' scope of what immigration reform should look like is a problem for the focus area.

• Kritiks: As I get older, I find that there is little to no creativity when it comes to making these arguments. Everyone is saying the same thing, which is pretty boring. The Kritik is by far my favorite position. So by default, I am looking for an excellent debate. This means a couple of things:
  • The explanation of the K needs to be done outside of the jargon of the author: for example, if you are running D&G, don't drop the term rhizomatic expansion and think that I know what that means. Explain it. Nothing gets me upset than a K team that drops terms and does not explain how those terms interact with the argument.
  • The more specific the link the more likely I am going to vote on it. I HATE GENERIC LINKS WITH A PASSION! Generic links illustrate lazy K debating. C'mon Son! If you are going to run the K, make sure that there a substantial and qualitative link scenario.
  • The alternative, I feel is the most important mechanism of the K. Therefore, take careful consideration as to what the alternative will be. I have voted on simple reject alternatives. I don't like voting on these alternatives too much. I like an alternative that does something more than just reject.
  • Be reminded that I am a teacher. You should be able to explain what your alternative looks like in the world of the classroom. Take that extra step to contextualize your alternative. It's nice (I guess) to say historical materialism, but to not explain it in the world of immigration reform is a sure fire way for me to ignore the alternative.
• Disadvantages: Even though I and DAs are not the best of friends, I have and will vote on it. I don't like shallow disad debates, which includes nonstop card reading and no real argumentation. This rings true for Politics. I prefer specificity on the DA. If I don't get that, then don't assume that I will vote on it.
• Counterplans: The CP has to make sense especially since the topic is education reform. The CP text needs to be stated clearly along with any planks that are added to the CP. Comparative solvency debates are the best way to get my ballot. Explain why your mechanism is the best one to solve the problem described in the 1AC. A good CP is able to create doubt as to why the aff's plan is needed in the first place, so as debaters you should create that doubt.
• Performance: Over the years, I have seen some performance arguments that dealt with the resolution and others that ignore the resolution altogether. In saying that, PLEASE ensure that your performance is at the very least resolutional. It's alright to talk about the resolution and its underlying assumptions. This is a good way to ensure that I am engaged in the round and makes you sound credible. If you are not going to talk about the topic in any way, I'm probably not the judge for you. When debating these arguments, please have an argument that makes sense. Framework is not a position on its own: it is just a way for me to look at impacts. You still have to answer the argument.

Ultimately, the last two speeches in the debate should help me in writing my decision. If that does not happen, then you leave me to my own devices in terms of looking at the flow and interpreting the flow for myself

Additional Things to know:

• Prep times end when the flash drive leaves the computer.
• Feel free to add me to your email chain: andrewgeathers@gmail.com
• A 30 speech does not exist (at least at the HS level) so don't expect one.
• Do not ask me what my preferences are: I will tell you how I like my steak, which sneakers I am going to buy, etc. Ask direct questions, assuming that you read this paradigm.
• Real world examples of how the aff/neg works help you.
• I am okay with speed....just make sure I understand you. I will make faces if I don't understand you.

Any questions: feel free to contact me @ andrewgeathers@gmail.com.

2017 Update

Overview- I'm old-ish (is 31 old?). I've been around 15 yearsand seen/coached most styles of debate (K/Perforrmance/Traditional/HS/College etc). I flow. I'll read (the warrents of) your cards and they matter to me.I do policy advacocy in real lifeso if you tell stuff I know isn't true in the real world you better defend it really well.Do what you do best. Use logic andtry to use truth over tech. I belive in education and try to give good feedback.

Been out the game for 2 years. Don't assuming I know anything about the topic specific acronyms or reference to specific teams since 2014. I'm up to date on basic news on China and trade but wouldn't know whichspecific parts of that discussion are hot in the debate work.What is below is still true just more detail from older philosophies all of it is still true. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2012 Update

I'll speak mostly to the K on K debates that I seems to almost exclusively judge. I'm really over any sort of infatuation with ethereal po mo stuff some people might have thought I had in days gone by. I still try to judges these debates on the flow, but I do have biases that I can only check to a degree. I think bodies matter, probably a lot, and theories that seek to get beyond them or to find some way to say they don't really matter that much are subject to a bs tests that I find teams advancing these arguments have a hard time passing when they debate teams that talk about identity.

One good way to deal with this would be to stress a more traditional terminal impact like explination of why your K matters. Much of the frustration I have with the etherial pomo stuff is the lack of connecting to actual peoples lives, which you can do with a robust explanation of how your K effects peoples in direct, meaningful ways.

Also, frameworks matter...probably a lot. Don't drop someones framework text and you should probably have one of your own. I guess I'm saying I view implicit clash having less of an impact in these K on K (and I guess all) framework debates, because for me the frame determines how I view said clash, so please be explicit in your clash or else I'll end up using trying to use the other teams framework to try to evaluate your arguments. Neither you nor I want this.

I guess I'll say that as I grow older, I just tend even more toward truth over tech. I can appreciate a good, logical strat (I appreciate the logic of some of Northwestern's AT Towson strats for example) and I'll vote for things like this if either these strats don't have basic meta level logical flaws or if the other team fails to point those flaws out. But if the common sense answers are advanced forcefull , even a well executed, well evidence strategy would be in serious jeopardy. Mostly it seems to be counter advocates that spin some random obfuscatory story about how they solve a K/performance aff when it seems a few common sense arguments would seems to indicate that they don't are what make me write this. For example when someone runs an identity K of debate Aff and the 1nc is 4 off including framework and a word PIC and the neg claims the Word PIC solves the entire aff despite obviously linking to the K of debate norms. The only thing that drive more insane than a 1NC making these statements is a 2AC that fails to point out the contradictions in these statemetns.

Remember I do a lot of work thinking about everyday issues of activism and local politics in addition to all the theoretical critical theory stuff. That means I'm just not going to be as less likely to enjoy going deep into a theoretical discussion of psychoanalysis or Bataille unless that discussion can be communicated as being in relation in some way to the conditions of oppression which can't not be always already in my mind given the city I live in and the things I see there. Yes, the person is political, but the political is not ONLY personal, it's also historical and structural. Take that as you will.

Last things I'll say that people don't seem to get about me is that, in many ways, I'm really an old school debater. I did CFLs, I did extemp and student congress in high school and feel every debater should too, I read more of The Economist than Adbusters, and I still feel the true test of any debater is how they would handle a public debate. I like logical, intelligent debate no matter what the content is and I dislike hyper strategic, jargon filled, avoidance debate no matter what the content is.

Old Philosophy (Circa 2009)

Overview: I guess the best place for the to start this is by saying I have both debated for Whitman College and debated for and now am helping to coach Towson University. I have literally been deep in the trenches on both sides of this communities stylistic wars have both the knowledge and scars that come with that. First, I’ll say that despite being raised to view debate as a game, I with age have come to see the pedagogical values of the activity as more important. Performance, framework, T and theory arguments should be made with this in mind. Second, let me say that while I definitely do not see myself as unbiased on the question of performative/critical/ “straight up” debate (I tend to lean more critical/performative) I have extensive experience with traditional arguments and can be persuaded to vote for framework against performance teams. You have the best chance of winning in front of me if you do what you do best. I try to be tabula rasa, but I do so knowing it is imposable.

Performance: Never actually debated it in a competitive round, but have extensive experience researching it and teaching it. I feel that strong performance arguments take a clear stance on the resolution (why not to debate it, why its bad, do they affirm through metaphor, if so what is that metaphor, etc). They should also clearly articulate what debate looks like in a world where their performative framework is adopted and what ground the other team has to interact with their performance. The less the performance teams articulates clearly what stance they take the more persuasive traditional framework arguments become.

On the traditional side, I feel the fatal flaw of most framework strategies is failing to generate any offense in the Performative team’s framework. YES. you probably will not win in this ALONE, but if your solving SOME of their offense you can more easily win a residual risk of your offense. The key thing is to show how your framework arguments interact with the telos of their performance. If they wanna solve oppression, make specific arguments that traditional debate solves the type of oppression they isolate; don’t just read shivley. Also, if they say politics is funked up, don’t JUST say traditional policy debate key to policy making, say it’s key to a new, none funked up form of politics and thus recenter the debate on whether traditional policy debate feeds traditional politics or changes it. Problem is many framework debates don’t get deep enough on these kinds of questions. I have a predisposition to not vote performance down on fairness grounds, this does NOT mean I will check in on it if a traditional teams do a good job debating the substance of the performance, be it with a kritik or a well executed framework argument.

Kritiks- I have the most intellectual foundation in this area. I have read a decent amount of literature on many of the most common K areas/authors (a lot of CRT, afrocentric stuff, a lot Foucault, a lot of D and G, some zizek, some security K stuff, not as much straight Marxist stuff but some, not as much Fem but some,). I generally feel most at home judging these debates. Negs should isolate specific links to the aff, failure to do some means I am much more likely to check in for the perm. Like on performance I tend not to be very persuaded by theory args on the K (lack of specific alts text bad, PIKs bad, framework means discourse doesn’t matter, etc). Aff’s should be cautious when banking on their advantage scenarios, not because I’ll check in on fiat is illusory, but because I feel many affs mishandle the arg many k teams make the K indicts the methodology behind your impact scenario. Aff’s should be able to defend the ethics behind their advocacy and their discourse. This does not mean they can’t win case outweighs, just they don’t get t say ”we win framework their for K is essentially a non Unique disad”. I can be persuaded to vote for no value to life arguments if executed well, 90% are not in my opinion.

Theory /T-
I tend to like functional over textual compeition, but it seems like aff teams are too scared to go for theory so i end up voting on cps i hate a lot. This includes consult, process, etc. I also tend to believe that the aff should get the resolution as a bases to generate their solvency deficits and offense against the CP, so if your CP is non topical that will help in terms of theoretical legitimacy, even if its international fiat. This does NOT mean you can not win consult, agent or other cps are legit, its just you better have some good topic specific reasons its key on the resolution. Multiple conditional advocacies are questionable in my book, but again it seems to be inevtbale so i've found i've cared alot less about this than i thought i would. That said there is diffrence between one conditional k and one cp and 3 conditional cps + CAP. You can defend all of these things, I just tend to believe that if your gonna play the debate game, in 2010 negs have enough strategic options not to need some of the stuff I am seeing.That said, theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and i generally dislike hearing big theory debates unless it's clear the aff has nothing else to go for.

On T I guess I believe reasonability is a powerful argument To win T for me on the neg against a performance team you’d have to make your T impacts interact with your larger framework arguments about the pedagogical value of the activity. Against a straight up team you’d have to articulate

a. specifically examples of ground abuse
b. why that ground is “good” ground in terms of debate quality and research base
and
c. why you have a resolution right to that ground.
Again, I have lots of experience with traditional competing interps views; I did a lot of T as a 1nr, but you have to win the impacts to T, not just the link.

DAs/CPs proper- Actually most of my debating was pretty straight up. A lot of politics in H.S., a lot of case, da, cp in college. Specific DA links to the aff are good, in depth case hits are even better. Impact calc is always key. Don’t just say your impact is big, say its bigER, fastER, MORE probable than your opponents and give evidence based reasons for this. As part of my maturation/indoctrination depending on who you talk to I am probably far more amenable that many in the community to vote on systemic impacts over nuclear war scenarios as long as the team running systemic impacts makes good defense claims (interdependence solves war, conventional war doesn’t escalate, etc). I general I give a LOT of weight to smart evidence or even analytical impact take outs to contrived advantages or disads, make these argument and GO FOR THEM as key parts of your impact calculus. I can imagine that I could be persuaded there is 0 risk of an advantage or da, but i never have been , probably because the teams good enough to do that are also good enough to never let themselves get put in the position where they had to go for this argument.

Evidence- Ev quality is a big thing for me, as is evidence utilization. I’ll read cards, but I’ll attempt to flow in a way that makes reading evidence (almost) unnecessary, and I will default to the team that does the better ev. comparison in round. Considering I flow warrants, I will be looking for teams to be doing the warrant comparison. Your 2ar/2nr should isolate the warrants in your evidence for me, otherwise I might/probably will be force to read cards and piece together the warrant comparison for myself which may lead me places you don’t want me to go. Also, it never cease to amaze me how many great cards are underhighlit and I see many debates where teams lose because they didn’t read enough of their good card. Also, I tend to take the best argument over the best source; just because something is peer reviewed or someone has a Phd does not mean that joe blogger goes away if joe blogger’s argument is better, epically in K debates where the intellectual framework of the status quo is being indicted. It is always good of course to have evidence that makes the better argument AND comes from a qualified source, so be sure to point out both.

TECH- I never debated paperless at Whitman but I’m very cool with it. Reading cards off laptop is cool just jump the other team the cards or give them the laptop so they can prep.

Blatent Contradictions- This is a pet peive of mine, but whatever. Tread lightly. YES, this means you, MR/MS I wanna run Cap K and Ptix DA with a econ impact...I AM talking to you. I do believe in some modicum, some VESTIGE of argumentative responsibility, and if the other teams concedes the double turn, you will almost certainly lose. Neg flex only goes so far...


Finally, I see civility as a key part of why I stay in the community. PLEASE, even if it’s a heated clash of civs debate, try to be civil to your opponent. I see K teams just as guilty of this as traditional teams, hell I probably help coach some, but still I feel this is key.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

GDS 12, Harvard 16

Overriding principle is, whatever arguments you make, I'll do my best to evaluate the round objectively. Also, try to have fun. It's why we debate, and if it's not, it should be.

The rest of this is just attempting to outline my default thoughts (which with few exceptions are all malleable). Hopefully it's helpful!

General Thoughts (that apply to most arguments)

Dropped arguments are true, but need to have a link and impact to matter. In addition, the way I think about drops is that an argument is new if my understanding changed substantially since it was last articulated. If your strategy is reading a 3 line politics thumper in the 2AC with the tag "thumper", I'm probably going to give the neg reasonable leeway.


I tend to think evidence is important and research is one of the more valuable aspects of debate. This is true for both "critical" and "policy" arguments. All else equal, I think that theory interpretations that incentivize good research are preferable to ones that don't.


That being said, I always hated it when judges would substitute reading evidence for paying attention and flowing debates - evidence is just an effective way to substantiate and support arguments you're already making (and impacting). I'm pretty unlikely to call for every card and piece together a messy debate after the fact. Weaving together all the research you've done into a cohesive narrative for why I should vote for you is difficult, but awesome if you do it well.

Theory

Didn't really go for theory much until the very end, but genuinely enjoy thinking about it. Some thoughts on how it often goes down:

-tend to prefer logical / predictable interpretations over arbitrary / useful ones.

-my default is that the neg either gets no conditionality or infinite conditionality. have yet to hear a logical explanation for any number in between.

-don't think you get much from reading evidence that your counterplan is awesome and educational. a counterplan can be awesome and educational, but still not be competitive.

-on the other hand, evidence can be very helpful in establishing counterplan competition, but primarily by defining words in the plan to generate an opportunity cost. I do not think the aff automatically gets to define the words in the plan just because they're aff. mostly defer to the best evidence, or the best logical interpretation of the plan, whichever side presents it.

-topicality debates are great and I wish they happened more often. but note, I've only been to one tournament this year, so if you're going for T at the NDT (2018), be aware that I might not automatically know what all the acronyms or references to other teams' affs are, and take the 10-15 seconds to explain them.

-slow down! I genuinely want to flow everything, but if you're reading a theory block like a card, I'm going to process it like the text of a card...


Disads

Trying to mathematically calculate risk in debate seems futile, but you can win that something is so improbable that its magnitude is irrelevant. Practically, this means I don't think you need "terminal impact defense" to beat a disad (or to win a disad against an aff with an "extinction" impact). Most impact defense is internal link defense anyway. Probably not surprisingly, I've always been a bit puzzled by the staying power of "big stick" extinction/nuclear war impacts.

I can't remember the last time I've voted for a politics disad. Most iterations I've seen recently don't rise to the threshold of "this makes sense" (and that's before the 2AC even starts).

Kritiks

Don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. In general, I think learning about the stuff should be inevitable, even if you never go for the k in your life (you still have to answer it, and good luck if you have no idea what you're talking about).

I find fairness impacts much more compelling than education impacts when the neg is going for framework. It's pretty easy for me to understand why the aff not reading a plan makes it significantly harder for the neg to win, but it's much harder for me to understand why traditional policy education is inherently more valuable than the literature associated with most k's.

Random other stuff

As a general rule, I will not vote on assertions that the other team should lose because of something that happened outside the current round (i.e. the time between the start of the 1AC and end of the 2AR). I have zero interest in adjudicating ongoing interpersonal disputes between debaters/coaches/teams. If this is your strat, don't pref me.


Paperless: Unless everything is taking an exceptionally long time, I usually don't care. I understand that computers sometimes fail and mistakes happen. If your computer crashes in the middle of your speech/prep, just say so and you can stop the timer while you fix it.

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

As there are always new debaters, I have chosen to add the following information about myself to help folks in having some reference points to place me in time and space and to learn more about me if they would like. Additionally, as this is a professional community, I have decided to include parts of my CV which is followed by my judging philosophy. 

Education
PhD Candidate, English Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, May 2016
Masters of Arts in Media, Culture and Communication, New York University, May 2011
Bachelor of Arts in Ethnic Studies, University of California at Berkeley, May 2001

Faculty Positions
Adjunct Professor, Arts & Humanities, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2014-Present
Adjunct Professor, School of Education, Manhattanville College, 2012-Present
Research & Development Associate, Hip-Hop Education Center, 2014-Present

Research Assistantships/Fellowships
Graduate Research Fellow, Institute for Urban and Minority Education at Teachers College, 2011-Present
Graduate Teaching Assistant to Dr. Ernest Morrell, Teachers College, Columbia, 2012
Hip-Hop Education Fellow, New York University, 2009-2011
Kids on Color Research Assistant to Dr. Charles McIllwain, NYU, 2011
International Youth Media Research Assistant to Dr. JoEllen Fisherkeller, NYU, 2010-2011

Debate Teaching Positions
Instructor/Coach, ACORN Community High School, 2011-2014
Instructor/Coach, Metropolitan Corporate Academy, 2009-2011
Institute Instructor, National Debate Education Project, 2002-2007
Institute Instructor, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, 2006
Instructor/Coach, Richmond High School (California), 2001-2003
Instructor/Coach, John F. Kennedy High School (California), 1999-2001
Institute Instructor, Bates College National Debate Institute, 2003-2004
Institute Instructor, Stanford National Debate Institute, 1999-2003
Institute Instructor, California National Forensics Institute, 1998-2002
Institute Instructor, Southern California Urban Debate League, 2000
Institute Instructor, National High School Forensics Consortium, 1998-1999

Executive and Administrative Positions
Founding Director, Teachers College Columbia University Debate Institute, 2012-Present
Executive Director, Seattle Debate Foundation, 2004-2009
Program Coordinator, Seattle Debate Foundation, 2003-2004
Program Director, Bay Area Urban Debate, 2001-2003

Judging Philosophy
Like Chuck D said about Hip-Hop: "come as you are". If I'm your judge, I believe the game is yours. You as debaters should determine the arguments, the procedures, and the framework of the round. I will listen to all arguments and modes of presentation and will vote for the arguments that are the most persuasive (by virtue of the way in which the debaters argue them) and for the team that best explains the criteria for and reasons why they should win (i.e. clearly breaking down the impact calculus, methodology, framework etc).

Despite my love for critical arguments I will listen to anything; I do love a good rumble. When I debated, I could get down with kritiks, counterplans, topicality and disads (and if I was Neg they would often all be in the 1NC, but not the 2NR). I will vote on your argument if you win it: explain the warrants, significance, weight (in relation to your opponents' best arguments), and evidentiary support (this could be from a wide-variety of texts [audio, print, visual, dance, academic, organic, personal narratives, music etc.]; it's up to you to explain the qualifications and reasons to prefer your evidence). The bottom line is this is your game and I don't believe that I should be in the back of the room judging debates if my lens for the round privileges a particular argument, style, framework, advocacy, ideology, etcetera: this is a debate--your debate. At the same time, a blank slate is not really a reality. Judging is subjective and we all have a sociocultural location from which we come into this activity. If you have any specific questions, please ask prior to round. I will do my best to be fair and consistent in adjudicating. That said, my background will inform what lens I will use to adjudicate the round if you don't provide me with an alternate conceptual/theoretical framework. What this means is that I have a cultural studies epistemology and I find footing in critical theories of race, gender, class, and education, which would contend that education should be the practice of freedom. 

That said, here are some suggestions/clarifying points:

For those critical ("critical" is being used broadly here) teams that do pref me, here's something for y'all: your arguments are more persuasive when they are articulated with historical and temporally recent and relevant examples. If we are at tournament in the wake of a major event, I find it compelling when debaters incorporate those events into their analysis. The key here is to make your criticism come to life. In running arguments provide me with references to real-life situations/culture/movements etc....and perhaps pay homage to those who have inspired your argument...there are a lot of folks out there whom we forget have tremendously impacted our worldview and advocacy. If your work is derived from their work, perhaps pay homage and due respect, and I mean this to say it's beyond the evidence. Mind you I'm not asking for some kind of tribute album; but if you're unclear as to what I mean, please ask.

New note: (As I edit this philosophy, I would be remiss not to mention how I am thinking about Tamir Rice and the lack of indictment in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases. To be sure, I do not think that these cases are anomalies, however, as they are preceded by a historical legacy of gratuitous racial violence and struggle.)

When debating framework or any procedural position, please provide and assess examples of cases, arguments, performances, ontologies, epistemologies etc. that are included or excluded under your interpretation or your opponents'.

Not all dropped arguments are winning arguments. Clearly you should capitalize on dropped arguments when they occur, but don't just assume that's a win and shadow extend. Extend the warrants and the significance of the dropped argument. If you don't debate line-by-line, you still need to be responsive to your opponents' arguments and tell me why I should view the round holistically or why certain arguments trump all others.

2NRs & 2ARs: going for every offensive argument is not usually a wise strategy. Know what you are winning and go for it. I know sometimes people are afraid of putting "all their eggs in one basket", but often times teams go to the other extreme and can't adequately cover/explain any of their positions when they go for everything. I often find myself unable to vote Negative when the 2NR goes for everything. 

Check out the acoustics in the room to see if this affects the sound/clarity of your voice. I suggest doing a mic check prior to the round. This mic check is also important if you are playing any audio. 

Open cross ex, ins and outs, different use of prep time, are all okay with me. I don't take prep for flashing.

In general, respect is important to me: respect for myriad cultures, literacies, and linguistics. Your argument can come from whatever socio-economic, political, or cultural perspective, but open and/or intentional disrespect will leave me feeling very uncomfortable and will be reflected in speaker points. That said, I do get irony, you don't have to be Cobert; just be really good at it. I fundamentally believe that debate is a site for us to feel safe to learn about the world around us, from multiple perspectives, experiences, linguistics, and forms of communication. We may disagree, but we can do it respectfully and compassionately. Basically what I'm saying is that I don't want anyone to feel that they have to check their cultures, indigenous knowledge, languages, and identities at the door in order to debate.

One last caveat is that although I value all forms of "evidence" (personal, organic, academic) in terms of the personal, I don't expect you to put yourself on blast. You may speak from your social location, but not to the extent that you feel uncomfortable, or feel like your privacy is violated. You decide who gets to know what about you.

Lastly, I believe that we are all in this activity because we have love for it on some level. Let that show in your rounds and in the way you treat your opponents and everyone else at the tournament. I pledge to do my very best to be fair, respectful and to contribute to the education of all folks in the round. If you have any questions, just ask before the round.

Peace, love, & Justice,

Jen

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Stratford/Harvard

Short version:

1. Defend a plan: If you don't read a (topical) plan, please don't pref me; neither of us will enjoy the experience. If you read, but don't meaningfully defend, a topical plan, you probably still shouldn't pref me, but it'll at least be a bit less painful.
2. Don't be mean: If you are mean, obnoxious and/or rude to the other team (or to me, although that actually bothers me less), your speaker points and credibility will suffer dramatically. I would feel fine giving under a 25 for egregious violators.
3. Be specific: As nearly all judges do, I appreciate specificity. However, other than the above issues, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly idiotic/generic (ex: A-spec, Should = Past of Shall), you probably don't need to worry very much about adapting to me, but please below for more details.

Detailed version:
Topicality: I find that well-developed topicality arguments can be interesting and persuasive, perhaps more so than other judges. I tend to evaluate these in terms of competing interpretations, but can be convinced to use an alternative framework if it is well explained. Generally my primary concern with 'reasonability' is that the Aff does a very poor job of explaining what effects that has upon how I should resolve the debate. However, my openness to more developed violations sort of cuts both ways, because it means that I will likely be less patient with blippy violations (a 20 second 'substantial' violation, should=past tense of shall, etc). Also, I usually find it impressive if either team can produce evidence describing the likely political effects of a particular interpretation of words in the resolution.

Other arguments about plan texts: These generally seem very silly to me. Assuming a plan is topical, I don't think it is possible for it to be 'abusive' in any other sense. Questions of specification/vagueness, plan flaws, etc should either be framed as T questions, solvency/evidenciary questions, or ignored. If a team's plan text is vague and you want to establish a link to a DA, you should A) ask them in CX and/or B) read evidence describing the likely effects of the plan. If an aff is unwilling to answer CX questions about their plan, I think that's fine, but they then forfeit the right to clarify later (except, of course, by reading evidence which I will then compare to Neg evidence). As a side-note, I do not think A-spec is a T question, and can't imagine finding it persuasive.

DAs: I think predictive uniqueness questions can never be established with certainty, and therefore prefer to first resolve the direction of the link. However, if told to do otherwise, I would be perfectly willing to ignore this. I think DAs should probably be intrinsic.

CPs: I err neg on all theory issues except those listed specifically below. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to reject a CP on PICs bad, only that my predisposition is not to do so. I also think theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, but not the team (conditionality/dispositionality being an exception).
Consult: I generally think these are illegitimate and non-competitive, but if a Neg has very, very good solvency evidence about the plan, they will substantially improve their chances on both of these issues. Note that I have a very high threshold for what constitutes "very very good solvency evidence" in this context.
Conditions: This is similar to consult, except the literature is usually better, so I am more willing to vote for these.
Agent CPs: I am mostly thinking here of international/multiple actor fiat, but domestic agent CPs raise less extreme versions of the same theoretical questions. I generally think these are legitimate, but am not sure that they necessarily test the opportunity cost of a particular political actor. Therefore, although most of the reasons that these CPs are illegitimate make little sense to me, a well developed argument about their failure to test opportunity cost could definitely persuade me to reject them.
Normal means CPs: I don't think that these are competitive, unless the Aff makes stupid mistakes in CX. Reading cards about the way the plan would be implemented absent the CPs fiated action does not mean that a world where the permutation explicitly alters it would look the same.

Kritiks: Here are the issues you should be aware of:
1) Framework: I begin with the assumption that the role of the ballot is to choose among simulated policy options. Therefore, the plan is the affirmative's normative statement of what should be changed, and the rest of the 1AC is a series of positive truth claims describing a world in which that occurs. I tend to think that evidence describing the relationship between representations and reality, etc is smart, but inapplicable to debate, because it is a game of sophistry with no necessary correspondence between what a speaker says and what they believe. I also find that the frequent "compromise" (we get our aff and they get their reps K) is logically incoherent as a framework , but am willing to use it if told to do so by the debaters.

2) Alternative: My primary concern here is that these are often so poorly explained (how they function, how they relate to the role of the ballot, etc) that I find them difficult to vote for. You should spend pre-round (and in-round) prep thinking about how to best articulate your alt and how it interacts with your links, their perm(s), and their advantage(s). It's not as much that I think vagueness is a 'theory issue' as much as that I am uncomfortable endorsing a political strategy that is extremely nebulous.

3) Literature: I know significantly more about some authors (ex: Foucault, Cap, Nietzsche, some queer theory, some CRT stuff, most IR K's, Heidegger, Schmitt) than others (ex:  Baudrillard, Deleuze, Badiou, Butler) so that will inevitably affect my ability to resolve some of those debates. Note that I also think Lacan, Chaloupka, most of Zizek's work, and all the other psychoanalysis stuff is basically garbage. Also, I find specific literature dramatically more interesting, persuasive and educational than generic evidence.

Leo (Sung) Kim
Harvard ‘17
Katy Taylor ‘13
hmu at leosjk07@gmail.com if u got questions thanks

i am not the leo kim who will be at the berkeley tournament

prefer email chains; flashing doesn't count as prep unless it's egregious

NOT to be confused with the Leo Kim from California (plz email the right Leo Kim)

updated for the harvard tournament
if it helps - check out my wikis
https://opencaselist15.paperlessdebate.com/Harvard/Kim-Borbon+Aff
https://opencaselist15.paperlessdebate.com/Harvard/Kim-Borbon+Neg

Short Version

Hi. I debated at Katy Taylor and debated at Harvard for 3 years. I coached Katy Taylor Albert and Zaki (RIP sorry about osama aff), and also coached Katy Taylor's Spencer/Subbu and Patrick/Mohamed. I believe the best judges will listen to and adjudicate as impartially as possible any argument and style of debate. You should do whatever you are best at.

I don't think you should pref me based on any perceived ideological bias. My preference is for good arguments and interesting debates.

That being said, I try to leave out any biases or predispositions I may have and be a fair and attentive judge. YOU DO YOU.

I am very reluctant to vote on arguments made in the text of cards but not in the debate. If you think you have better evidence you should explain why.

A new argument is one that could not have been predictably deduced from my understanding of its previous form.

Also - I will vote on an argument only if I can explain it to the other team. This is an arbitrary standard, but it’s the best one I could come up with and it encourages you to communicate more so I’m ok with it.

Clarity over Speed – you can be the fastest debater in the world but it doesn’t matter if you are unclear and nobody can understand you. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points. Also slow down in the T debate and theory debate.

Arguments – Arguments are arguments regardless of what form they take so do whatever you like to do and what you are best at. Don’t assume that I am familiar with the specific details of your disadvantage or that I am familiar with whatever critical literature you read. I just want a fun, well-flushed debate where everything is explained well and why it matters to me in the debate round. 

Ethics- don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things, don't clip obviously. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole. 

If you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask before the round!

Be smart. Be funny. Relax. This will help your speaks. Have fun!

+0.5 speaks to the team that uses less than one min of prep and wins


Specifics

I understand that my short version isn't very helpful for people looking for very specific stuff, so I'll write stuff out.

Clarity over Speed – you can be the fastest debater in the world but it doesn’t matter if you are unclear and nobody can understand you. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points. Also slow down in the T debate and theory debate.

CX – a lot of debates can be won in cross-x and a good cross-x can be very devastating and very positive for speaker points (or negative if you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about). Win links to your stuff in cross-x, win no-links to their stuff in cross-x, etc. I will listen to cross-x.

Arguments - Arguments are arguments regardless of what form they take so do whatever you like to do and what you are best at. Don’t assume that I am familiar with the specific details of your disadvantage or that I am familiar with whatever critical literature you read. I just want a fun, well-flushed debate where everything is explained well and why it matters to me in the debate round. I was as comfortable taking the deterrence DA in the 1NR as I was taking the Metaphysics of Presence K - so don't pref me based on what you think is an ideological bias.

Kritiks and the like - Ks are cool. I did a lot of K stuff in high school, and still do a lot of K stuff in college. My academic interest (beyond statistics and stuff) are in security studies and IR. Things I don't like when judging K debates: buzzwords thrown around without unpacking them or explaining their significance, not engaging with the aff, assuming I know the lit, trying too hard to be BoSu or Mich KM but executing poorly, lack of alternative explanation in the 2NR, no external impact. Things I do like when judging K debates: specific analysis, sass, showing off your knowledge, K tricks, smart CX strategies to set up the K, cool explanations in the 2NR of how the K solves the case, good impact calculus.

K Affs - Also cool. I don't believe that there is a necessity for a plan text but I do wish the affirmative is in the direction of the topic, or at least about the topic. That said, if you can robustly defend your method/the important of your advocacy, sure go for it.

Framework: Framework debates, to me, are basically a debate over competing visions of debate and methods. Impact calculus please. "Destroys fairness" isn't an impact - why does fairness matter? What's the impact to fairness or why is switch-side debate good? what makes the neg's model of debate better than the aff's model of debate? why is the aff's model of debate good? Framework debates are fun to judge if they're done well! Yay!

Disadvantages - I like timely/specific DA's. I like politics. I like DA's. I don't know what else to say here. Good specific analysis of turns case and impact calculus = higher speaker points. Also I am not afraid to vote on no risk of the disad. Oh, btw, not a big fan of rider DAs but whatever I'll vote for it if you win it.

Counterplans- I think plan plus counterplans are solved by perm do both. I like really tricky PICs. I usually err neg on theory questions such as PICs bad, bad, etc, but they can definitely be won in front of me. However, I don’t want the 2AR to be PICs bad. Just engage with the substance yo. Also, if your CP has like 10 planks and you say you can kick planks, I'm more likely to be aff-leaning on theory args that I usually lean neg on (like condo). #DontBringConsultJapanBack

T/Theory: [copied and pasted from my roommate Madhu Vijay's philosphy aka MadDog Madhu] The team that wins the tech will win my ballot, regardless of the underlying argument's quality. (Of course, it's harder to make a compelling, technically sound case for something like no neg fiat.) Impact calculus is absolutely vital and underutilized. My substantive preferences aren't very relevant -- I will say that in general, the closer a CP is to the plan and the less specific differentiating evidence the neg has, the less likely I will be to believe it's competitive/legitimate. That is a very loose preference, and tech >>>>>>>> vague predispositions here. I tend to default to competing interpretations because reasonability is often debated vaguely/poorly by aff teams; if you can do otherwise, do so. As every judge says, theory/T are like DA's; you should debate them as such, and I will judge them as such. A caveat is that if you do things like not meeting your own interpretation, you'll probably lose. tbh i don't like judging theory debates because it's often done poorly

Also, I generally default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise (This is just the position i start out with in the debate - if you can win a disad to this preference then I will view the debate through a lens of reasonability and the same the other way). Topicality is generally a voting issue. T doesn’t cause genocide, but certain impact turns to T can be persuasive.

Case – woefully underused part of the debate. These arguments can be so strategic and when used creatively, they can be one of the most important parts of the debate. I’m not talking only defense claims like ECONOMIC COLLAPSE =/= EXTINCTION, but also impact turns and straight turns to their scenarios. Those are coolio. A well-done and well-engaged case debate = more speaker points. Smart cross-applications on either side = more speaker points.

Some self-perceived theory bias:
Aff-leaning on: Consults/Conditions, A-Spec (lol)
Neg-leaning on: Conditionality (to a certain extent), PICs bad (unless it's super abusive), Dispo

Ethics- don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole. I’m fine with cursing in round if done correctly/appropriately/moderately.

If you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask before the round!

Be smart. Be funny. Relax. This will help your speaks. Have fun!

errr... if it matters, people who have really influenced me in my debate career at harvard so far (in no particular order): patrick kennedy, lundberg, mathew petersen, bradley bolman, yung michael suo  

debated for four years (3 in LD, 1 in policy) and now i coach Greenhill!

the good
- i like it when debaters talk about the tournament topic, however creatively interpreted
- i like policy args a lot, this is a safe go-to strat for me
- i think k debates are my favorite debates to judge so if you have them in your toolbox you should pull them out.
- re k vs T/framework: i love me a good critical aff. but! I also love me a good non-generic framework shell. I'd prefer a critical aff that could be construed as topical (you can tell me what that means though!).
- FYI you don't win just because you said "X thing is rly bad". give me some way to grapple with it. doesn't have to be state action.
- i think T debates are a lot of fun

the bad
- i won't vote on arguments that imply nothing or everything is morally permissible.
- i'm bad for a dense analytic philosophy debate. haven't read the lit, can't really keep up, sorry. 
- that being said I'd prefer if you went for something that you're good at explaining even if it's not my favorite argument, as opposed to reading what you think is my favorite argument and explaining it badly
- i really really don't like theory for the sake of having theory in the speech doc. i don't have a clear standard for what counts as "frivolous" but jobes, use common sense. if you see me pulling a face and shaking my head (i'm really expressive!) you should just say "nvm" and skip to the next thing in ur doc because odds are I will just go "la la la" and pretend i never flowed the argument

misc/speaker stuff
- i'm probably tired and distracted when i'm judging you, so be interesting and emphasize the things you want me to pay attention to.
- if ur debating someone who is obviously less experienced than you are, please don't be mean. slow down and make the debate as fun and educational for them as possible. we've all been there before, and I'll raise your speaks for it.
- sass is great and fun to watch, unnecessary rudeness/pettiness are annoying .
- racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive comments = L0
- plez disclose ("but i'll be kicked off the team if i disclose" i do not believe u. strike me.)

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate.

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

Leandra Lopez

Background:
Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years), University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)

Debate thoughts:
The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan. Certainly, it is the burden of the negative to make persuasive arguments for why this is true.

Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument.

Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better.

If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is not an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.

Evidence quality over quantity.

Flow.

Arguments I do not want to hear:
-Death is good.
-Communism is good.

Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. For questions or the email chain - leandrallopez@gmail.com

Georgetown '17

Stuyvesant '13

You should debate what you're best at. To me, the game of debate is more important than any particular argument. I think it's most important that debaters try to write the ballot in their final rebuttal and leave as few issues unresolved as possible. 

While I am doing work for Georgetown this year, I'm probably somewhat less familiar with the topic than you are, so please try to be clear and explain specific terms/acronyms. 

Be respectful of your opponent, partner, and judge. 

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states. Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. 

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical. 

Topicality 

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic. 

Kritiks 

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well thought out case arguments. 

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. 

Email: flynnmakuch@gmail.com

***you know what is absolutely CX or your prep time? asking the other teams which cards they read or didn't read. you are responsible for flowing and don't get free time to compensate for your inability to do so. a "marked doc" does not mean a new doc where the other team removes all the cards they didnt read

a few virtual/hybrid debate things:

-audio is less intelligible than in person -- make sure you're really clearly enunciating -- i'll yell clear 2-3 times and my facial expressions will be obvious if i can't flow you and then frankly the L is on you pal

(tbh i think most people would benefit from going a bit slower even in person. don't sacrifice judge understanding at the altar of reading that last card)

-MAKE SURE you get a thumbs up or a yes that I'm ready before you start

-prep stops when you've attached the document to the email it shouldn't take you more than 5 seconds from after you've said stop prep to have pressing send on the email

My pronouns are they/them and my last name is pronounced "MACK-oo."

I have judged close to a million rounds

debate history: -HS GBN (2x TOC elims, RRs) - College Texas (2x NDT elims, RRs) -Colleges coached: WSU, UCO, Emory, NU -HSs coached: bronx science, edgemont, GBS, westwood, damien -taught/directed at many camps every summer over the last 12 years -currently assistant coach for NU and used to work full time at the Chicago Debate League + judge/direct lots of tournaments

TOP LEVEL:

Even though I read as arguments and studied critical literature about race, gender, colonialism, and sexuality in college, my HS background was exclusively "policy," and I continue to do research and coach in both areas.

In the post round, if you'd like to seek advice or challenge components of my thinking or note your disagreement or be grumpy or try to get my ballot in the future or try to understand my decision, I would love to discuss my decision with you! If you are into post-rounding as some weird ego thing where you need to demonstrate that you couldn't possibly have lost a debate by berating the judge, then you should not pref me.

I take a while/my time to decide debates, so time-wasting during a debate is truly to your detriment.

After the 2XR, please send me a judge doc with the (marked version) of ONLY the cards you extended.

Things I am really interested in:

--lots of evidence comparison!! this very often shifts my decisions and honestly y'all have become not that good at doing this consistently. a great 2XR will explicitly indict every piece of evidence the other team has read on the position they are extending

--nuanced impact/il comparison

--framing arguments and judge instruction!!!!!!!

--even if arguments -- recognizing where you might be losing

--beginning the 2XR with what you want the RFD to be very explicitly

--in depth explanations -- more warrants! i feel QUITE confident just jettisoning arguments that weren't explained

--strategic concessions + cross applications

--thoughtful and consistent analytics

--attentive line by line

--(hate to have to say this) 2NRs that take advantage of 1AR dropped arguments. It will hurt your speaker points a little if there's a clear path to victory that you ignore entirely

Things I am not interested in:

--cruelty

--inserting long rehighlightings

--long overviews - LINE BY LINE is where those overview arguments fit my friends. i promise you can find a spot if u look

--being rude to your partner

--scholarship/behavior that is morally reprehensible

--"if you vote X you'll have to look me in the eye and explain..., etc." type of inefficient judge strong-arming

--multiple paragraph tags

--mumble spreading on the text of cards

--things that happened outside of the round

--highlighting into sentence fragments

When cx time is over, both teams need to stop talking unless someone wants to take prep.

Make sure you time yourselves, because I WILL forget at some point

Pointing out that something was conceded is not the same as extending that argument. Author names or claims without warrants are not arguments. I think I have a higher standard than most for this. A conceded assertion is still not an argument. Yes ofc, your burden of explanation is substantially reduced, but there's gotta be something.

Framework:

Things I am interested in:

--saying anything new or unique if possible - tbh i judge mostly fw debates and i promise you i have already heard your blocks many times and i am bored

--the solvency mechanism of the aff, whatever solvency means in the context of the affirmative

--clash impacts in the context of skills gained from debate

--whether the aff is contestable

--a good ol' topical version of the aff that addresses impact turns

--impact framing arguments

--line by line refutation

--well developed impact turns to the neg's interpretation/TVA that don't apply to a counter interpretation

--counter interpretations that address some of the neg's clash/limits arguments

--slowing down when reading consecutive paragraphs of text you have typed for 2nr/2ar

Things I am less interested in:

--affs that are descriptive but not prescriptive -- it's easy to say something is bad, even in a very theoretically dense, educational, interesting way. the more difficult question is determining the best method (not picky about what this is) for addressing or approaching the problem described

--fairness as an impact in and of itself -- it's an internal link to an impact (in my default view, though I end up voting for it pretty frequently bc not well contested)

--long, pre-written "overviews" where you address none of the line by line (both sides are very bad about doing this)

(As an aside, if the aff says they'll defend they link to DA(s), I would always strongly prefer the neg take them up on a substantive debate. That's not to say the neg shouldn't go for framework if that's their heart's desire, only that I find a substantive debate more interesting.)

Counterplans:

Whatever re: the whole thing. I truly have no strong feelings/beliefs about conditionality either way, other than it'll be tough to win 1 is bad. But, I decide that like I decide all things: based on the arguments actually presented in the theory debate.

Exception to that -- perms are just no link arguments to the opportunity cost of the CP, so I will never vote that dropped perm theory arguments are a reason to reject the team.

DAs:

See plea for evidence and impact comparison above. When I get a stack of cards at the end of the debate, it's going to be annoying for both of us that I now just have to render judgment on each of them with no guidance.

Please make more smart, warranted analytics about why the DA is nonsense. A lot of DAs don't pass the test of being a complete argument if the full text of the cards are read and you just take a second to actually think about it.

I expect a high degree of technical proficiency in these debates.

Ks:

Can we please being doing more line by line?

Neg needs SPECIFICITY in your explanation of the aff. Highly specific cards to the aff are not necessary, though helpful, to make specific links, alt solves, turns case, root cause arguments etc. Reference/quote the aff's 1ac ev. Use historical examples. Make logical arguments.

What is the impact to the link in the context of turning/implicating the aff? If you can't answer this question I don't think the link is all that useful unless it's a top level thesis claim. The more contextual your explanation of every facet of the k is to the aff, the more likely you will win that part of the debate and the higher your speaker points will be.

Against policy affs, you will likely win a link, so focus your attentions on defeating the impact turns/case outweighs arguments from the jump. Opposite for k affs -- less focus on impact, instead focus on in depth contextual explanations of the link and how it turns the aff, the alt solves aff impact better, DAs to the perm that aren't just links to the aff, etc.

I almost always find the framework debate to be a huge waste of everyone's time. Both sides get to weigh their stuff -- there are NO debate theory arguments I find persuasive responding to that. Please just spend this time clashing over the substance of the K/aff (things like epistemology/discourse first are substantive arguments btw). This is my most biased opinion, in that it's the only place I consider intervening -- I will almost always err towards allowing both teams to access their substance, even if one team isn't doing very well on the fw debate. If I'm the only judge, feel free to spend VERY little time here.

Finally, almost every argument in the overview should/could be on the line by line.

When aff vs. the K, know thyself. Before the tournament you should know what you want the 2AR to be against Ks. Hint: it's probably not the perm if you're not reading a k aff

T:

Debates about reasonability are usually so shallow as to be meaningless.

Let me save you time:

You: "What did you think about [x argument/author name]"???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Me: "I didn't think about it that much because you didn't tell me to/you didn't speak about it enough or in a way that made it relevant to my decision making process."

However:

I do try to be thorough. Debaters have worked hard to get here, so it's my obligation to work hard to assess the debate.

**************

This is the best cx I've ever seen and a very important video to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rgzsO-AMM

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Evan McCarty

I. Introduction

I debated for Northwestern and graduated in 2016. I now work in strategy and biz ops at a legal technology company. I have not researched the [insert name of current topic] topic at all.

II. Top Level

The best debaters are hard-working, strategic, passionate about the activity, and gracious to others in the community.

Tech > truth, but it's often easier to win the tech if your argument is true.

III. Predispositions

I’ll vote on nearly any warranted argument. That being said, here are some predispositions that guide my thinking. All of these can be overcome with a warranted argument to the contrary:

1. Pragmatism > Idealism.

2. Debate should be about evaluating courses of action against their opportunity costs. If the AFF proves that the NEG's counterplan, kritik, or disadvantage is not a germane opportunity cost to the plan, I'm inclined to disregard the NEG's position.

3. Clash is good. Positions that promote clash are good for debate. Positions that avoid clash are bad for debate.

4. The AFF should defend topical action. The judge should vote AFF if a given topical action is preferable to the status quo or a competitive (opportunity-cost) action.

5. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

IV. Constraints

Some of my views are not subject to change. These include:

1. A dropped argument (claim + warrant) is presumptively true for the rest of the debate. However, I have a relatively high threshold for what constitutes an argument in the first place. For example, the phrase “conditionality is a voter – time and strat skew, argumentative irresponsibility – dispo solves” is not an argument, because it does not contain an actual warrant (and is not, for that matter, a complete sentence).

2. No take-backs – if you make an argument and the other team does not contest it, then you don't get to retract it.

3. Intentionally intimidating the opposing team, judge, or audience through threats of physical or emotional violence --> loss.

4. Respect for your opponents, the activity, and the community is important.

V. Kritiks

My voting record for critical arguments is better than one may have expected given the arguments I ran while debating. That being said, I would still generally consider myself "good" for framework against non-traditional affirmatives and "good" for the aff against most criticisms.

The efficacy of the affirmative's advocacy/negative's alternative is incredibly important. The more sweeping your impact claim, the more important it is that you have a clear proposal to solve it. Critical arguments that invest time explaining the efficacy of their proposal have a very good record in front of me.

I am a much better judge for affirmatives that are in the "direction" of the topic than those that simply mention the topic in passing (or worse, don't mention it at all).

I am a better judge for identity-based arguments than for anything postmodern/high theory.

Kritiks do best in front of me if they cause me to think implementation of the plan would be a bad idea.

VI. Other

1. Zero-risk is totally a thing.

2. High quality evidence > smart analytics > low quality evidence.

patrick.g.mccleary@gmail.com

I think this is my one old man pet peeve: please don't call it "cross."

I debated from 2006-2010 at Loyola Blakefield HS, then from 2010-2013 at the University of Mary Washington. Coached at George Mason University from 2014-2017. I've been mostly out of debate since then aside from a handful of debates each year. The place where this probably impacts you most is in T debates (if you're shotgunning a case list at me, especially one full of topic acronyms, I may not know what you're talking about).

Short version - do what you do. I’m not here to tell you what debate is supposed to be about or what arguments are best, so I won’t judge in a fashion that assumes I know the answers to those questions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that break ties. In other words, if two sides debate an argument as perfectly (or as poorly?) as humanly possible, this is how I would probably err in a given situation.

Top level stuff:
I enjoy fast, clash-heavy, policy debate. I think there are benefits to all three of those descriptors (though I am open to well-argued critiques of “policy” – see below). That necessitates certain things about the way I judge:
- I like to flow. I will evaluate arguments that tell me not to flow in order to determine if not flowing is a better model for debate, but I need to flow the arguments to make that determination in the first place
- Line by line is important in my decision-making. I have a tendency to reward direct clash over embedded/holistic argumentation. That doesn't mean I adhere strictly to the line by line, but keep in mind that it can be a tiebreaker, and that good line by line debating can only help your points.
- Clarity is crucial. A lot of “bad judging decisions” are the result of miscommunications between judges and debaters
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Phrases such as “fiat solves the link” or “infinite regression” are not arguments. Teams are only responsible for responding to arguments.

Paperless prep - I took a decent amount, so I'm pretty lenient about it. I also think that the whole "when the email is sent/when the jump drive is out" standard reduces the quality of debates by forcing debaters to take prep when they aren't actually prepping. I think prep time stops when you are no longer prepping your speech. But you should know that the more prep you take means the less time I have to decide the debate. There's also a limit to the dead time I can allow because I do like having time to decide.

Speaker Points:
I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29.3-29.5 is a speaker award, 29-29.2 is good/should be clearing, 28.5-28.9 is on the cusp of clearing, 28-28.4 is average, 27.5-27.9 is below average, 27 and up needs work or might be in the wrong division. Any lower and you probably did something unethical or offensive. I try to roughly keep up with community norms here.

One more note on speaks - borrowed from Hester's philosophy:

"Debaters who have used the opportunity afforded by annual resolutions to learn about the topic and are able to apply that knowledge in the round will be in position to receive higher points than debaters whose speeches are lacking in this category. Debaters whose speeches reflect little to no effort at having learned about this season's topic may win the debate, but will not receive good points.

This does not mean the AFF must read a plan text...nor that the NEG can only debate the case (rarely a wise strategy). It simply means i am listening for proof that debaters are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about a different topic area each season."

Topicality
I think it’s one of the most underutilized tools in the neg arsenal. I also think 1ARs don’t give it enough credibility. It’s a voter and never a reverse voter. Limits determines everything. I view topicality as a battle between functional limits for the aff and predictable limits for the neg. That’s also what determines whether or not an aff is “reasonable” or not. I frequently find myself caring very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side).

ASpec is a nonstarter unless you ask in c/x, and even then it’s probably an uphill battle. As a 2A, I respect the aff’s choice to refuse to give PIC ground in 1AC c/x, but affs need to understand that a mishandled vagueness argument can lead to an outcome, however unlikely, that they don’t want. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts.

DA
I’m most familiar with these kinds of debates. Here’s a laundry list of random advice and thoughts.

- I think DAs can have a tendency to be a series of strung together cards – it’s important to articulate a story to the DA that makes sense. Note - this is also an opportunity for you politics 1NRs out there to prove to me that you have some topic/current events knowledge and to get a nice boost in speaker points.

- I think there can be zero risk of a link, especially if your DA is one of the ones described above. That being said, going for a link turn can still be more strategic than terminal defense because controlling the direction arrow of the link/internal link chain necessarily zeroes the link.

- Link precedes uniqueness.

- Start impact calculus as early as possible.

- Cards should never be tagged “more ev.”

- Just respond to arguments instead of saying “uniqueness (or link) debate – group it.”

- In many instances (especially picking apart opponents’ cards), smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards.

CP
The absolute best thing the last rebuttals can do in a CP debate (and pretty much all debates) is to assume that the other side is going to win some part of their argument - whether that be case defense or a solvency deficit. That means you need to quantify the risk of the solvency deficit versus the risk of the DA/case. Affs should be smart and creative with permutations and explanations of the perm. Negs should lock down what the perm is early to avoid aff shiftiness.

If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR. Caveat - if the block says "2NR choice checks" when answering conditionality in the block, I will almost definitely hold the neg to one world in the 2NR. Another caveat - if the 1NC response to the status question is "status quo is always a logical option" (or some functional equivalent) AND the block rearticulates that the judge can kick the CP for the neg, it would be too late for the 2AR to make an argument about sticking the neg with the CP.

***ADA/NDT 2015 Edit***

I think I'm more in the 1%/any risk camp than I initially thought I was. This is especially true with a 2NR that includes a CP that solves the case. A tiny net benefit lowers the bar for a perm/solvency deficit, but it seems logical to me that there needs to be a perm/solvency deficit to beat a CP.

Theory
Again – these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Conditionality – fine within reason. I personally believe more strongly in the justifications for 1 CP, 1 K as opposed to 2 CPs or 2 Ks. Neg debaters would be well-served making arguments that reflect that distinction.
Dispositionality – I would be surprised if I voted against a team on it
CPs that do the whole aff (consult, condition, etc) – probably not reasons to reject the team. Perm do the CP is probably a winner though.
PICs – probably good, especially the more aff specific and germane they are.

As a rule of thumb, smarter arguments like “conditional PICs bad” are generally better than reading your “conditionality bad” and “PICs bad" blocks.

K
Not the most familiar with all of the lit here, but probably not the least familiar either. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around justifying that you get the aff, then using the aff as a way to defend your scholarship, method, and way of understanding the world. The best neg arguments make the case irrelevant, either through framework arguments, root cause/terminal solvency takeout-type args, or establishing a different paradigm through which I assess impacts.

I’m more familiar with the standard –ism Ks: capitalism, feminism, imperialism, etc., but I’m willing to hear whatever K you’ve got if you do it well. But if you think there’s a chance that your K might be over my head, please label and describe it by the argument as opposed to just the random author.

Planless Affs/Framework Debates
I’m open to hearing types of affirmatives that criticize the topic or norms/structures/discrimination within the community. I have voted for these in the past, though more often than not this is due to poor execution by the neg. Some things about me that I think can influence my decisions in a “clash of civilizations” style debate:

- Debate is a game. It is highly unlikely that you will change my mind on this point.

- The more related the aff is to the topic, the less uphill the framework battle is for the aff - see above. For certain affs, I definitely understand that it's more strategic to run from the topic and/or be about debate. I'm not bad for these affs. It just raises the bar for both teams to make sure you're clashing in a framework debate rooted in impact turns
- Nebulous terms like fairness, education, and x-ology are not impacts in and of themselves
- I am more likely to reward teams who do line by line analysis than those who operate more holistically. This is both because I believe in the value of direct clash (see above) and because it seems to disincentivize that sort of clash if I reward embedding clash when the other team is doing the work to create clash directly.

[Post Coast 2015]

- I'm starting to realize that I think I'm better for the neg on theoretical framework than substantive framework, but I think this is a divergence from most judges who see clash debates as often as I do. I think aff teams in clash debates have way better answers to a 2NR that focuses on substantive framework args, whereas it is less likely I will be compelled by their answers to theoretical framework args. Neg teams would probably be best served using substantive args to limit aff offense, but get most of their offense from theoretical args.

This is obviously the most controversial area when it comes to preffing judges. So if you read a planless aff or are facing one with me in the back and you have questions, please ask them.

Case
Almost every single 2NR should address the case. Case debates are awesome. Please do them and do them well.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCoy%2C+Andrew

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

9/20/2019

I have experience debating competitively in high school and college from 2008-2015. I debated at Baltimore City College and Harvard.

I don't prefer listening to certain arguments over others.

I like debates where debaters successfully clash on crucial, core issues in the debate.

I see my role as a judge to decide on a winner and loser of the debate, and to justify to the debaters, especially the losing team, the reasons for my decision.

I do not seek to read evidence after debates, and will usually only read evidence to resolve crucial questions that are not resolved by the debaters.

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Kate Ortiz

Assistant Director of Debate - Rutgers University

3 years High School Debate Experience

4+ years College Debate Experience

Updated - 11/12/2013

Here is how I evaluate the debate: I will determine who in this space debated best. That means I will do everything in my power not to intervene with what has been presented to me for the hour and half (maybe more depending if there's tech failure invovled) we spent together.

I will flow using pen and paper. Sometimes I will use my computer if I don’t feel like writing. When it comes to fast, tech debate my pen to paper time will lag depending how quickly you speed through your theory and/or analytical discussion.  Not so much the case when I flow on a computer. Why, then, you ask I prefer to flow mostly on pen and paper? I simply prefer to record the debate in this manner. My flowing skills on a computer are not up to snuff compared to others.

I also have a tendency to not have a timer on me but I will time the debate using my phone. My responses as to how much time you have left will delay because my phone times out and it takes a few seconds more to pull out the timer again. So keep these few points in mind and I will do my best to evaluate your debate to the best of my abilities.

With that said, let's get to the nitty-gritty of my paradigm:

Topicality (also applicable for Theory debates): I use competing interpretations as a default to evaluate if neither side resolves this debate. Oftentimes I judge T debates where neither is explaining really why their interpretation is better for the overall quality of debate. And that’s where I think the discussion really needs to happen. “It overlimits the topic and that’s bad for education…judge” What about education? Is about the burden of research? Is there an area of the topic that will help us understand this topic better? As for K’s of Topicality; I view them as another way of saying counter-standards as opposed to saying they are an independent voter.

Disads and CPs: These sort of debates I am open to hearing (and quite welcome it actually!) since I do love to indulge in hearing a clever link story or perhaps a really tricky CP. Perhaps I might not be the best critic on the circuit because of my response time in flowing. I would prefer if these debates were done a tad bit slower when it comes to analytic and tag-line reading. I'm not talking about Public Fourm slow but just enough that you're clear enough for me to write up a coherent tag on my paper. Generally, I resolve these debates depending on the quality of link and impact discussion. If the debate becomes really close then I will call for evidence that was presented in the final rebuttals and will determine who constructed the most compelling scenario.

Kritiks: Before I had a ridiculous, prentitious standard to understanding how I evaulate kritik debates but really? Debate it out. The more nuanced and specific your analysis of the link discussion is then the more likely you are ahead in the debate. If the debate comes close then, as always, I will evaluate based on the evidence presented and the quality of the analysis that was made.

Alternative Style/Framework: Alternative styles of debate? Yes. Love it. Been there, done that. I enjoy judging them. This is your space and I am not going to dictate to you how you should use your space and voice. That is to be determined by your opponents. Now, speaking of framework, just because I enjoy a particular way people debate does not mean I will not listen to your framework arguments. Ones which call that the aff or neg should do some sort of policy action within the realms of the USfg. As I've said before, this is your space and you should engage your opponents to whichever makes you feel most comfortable engaging in. Does that necessarily make your framework argument a winning strat? Sometimes, yes and sometimes, no. I have voted on framework in the past because the other team either conceded it or had a really defensive answer which does not sway me to vote in their favor.

Paperless Debate: I don’t run prep time if the team is transferring their file into their USB-drive. Let's all pray that there isn't any tech issues.

Speaker-Points:

I evaluate speaker-points based on the level performance of the debate. If you're a novice and don't give the most stellar of warrants in the debate, I will be a lot more forgiving than if you're a JV-debater. But keep in mind the following:

1.) Don't be a McDouchebag. While I am a sucker for the crude and snarky, it shouldn't be at the expense of the other team's feelings by taking cheap ad hominems. Let's be real: you are a bunch of nerds congragating in someone else's school to show off your 700+hours of research. You are the last person to be talking smack. Be smart, not an asshole. 

Another note:
Don't say horribly offensive things. We're talking about "slavery doesn't exist" or straight up "racism doesn't exist because Obama is in office" or call any of the members of this space a demeaning name type comments, If this is pointed out by the other team, no accountability has been taken and you still continue with such conduct then, as stated above, I will have to take this into consideration when assigning speaker points.

2.) I am fine with fast-debate however your speed should not degenerate your clarity. I will shout clear for three-times. If you still continue to be unclear then I will stop flowing until I hear an argument coherent enough to flow.

So here's the breakdown:

29-30: You deserve a speaker award within the top-five and deserve a spot in the late elimination rounds.

28-.28.5: You should be in the top-ten speaker range and I expect to see you in elims.

27-27.5: An average performance. Nothing that really stands out in the debate. There are still areas that can be improved to get you to that 28-range.

26-26.6- There are a lot of areas that can be improved. It could be your execution of arguments or your overall performance in the debate (ie speaking, clashing with the other team). 

25 and under- I think we might have a problem here. You probably done something terribly offensive.

Good luck! I look forward to judging you soon.

I am open to all types of arguments as long as there is a clear connection and purpose behind them. Speed will be a factor - especially since the rounds are virtual and the quality of the sound could be a problem. Respect for your opposing team is critical. Adequate time should be given to ask and answer questions and there is never a reason for rude or aggressive language.

Dylan Quigley

Currently an attorney for foster youth, coached at Dartmouth ('11-'13) and Harvard ('13-'16), debated at Kansas ('06-'11)

Updated: 9/2023

Note for 2023:

I've been out of the activity for a bit now so do with that what you will. I did debate on the last nukes topic and have continued to follow nuclear policy some so I should be ok with topic jargon, but probably not more recent K authors or generics.

Some distance from debate also makes me feel that my original paradigm below is a little too serious. It's a game; please have fun.

Note for 2019:

Being out of debate has not substantially changed my views except maybe to deepen my belief in empathy for others. I think the stereotype is that people leave debate and become more skeptical of K alts which is probably true, but I think I have become equally more skeptical of the "pragmatism" of most plans as well.

Original Philosophy:

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate.

I don't flow that well, slow down.

I like and reward people who take on big debates, rather than avoid them with fancy footwork.

I think I am most impressed by debaters who can use small concessions or the given facts in the debate to create a complex vision of how the world operates.

I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

If you are doing your prefs, I may not be a good judge for you if:

I am turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on an anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO, death good and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "trolling" is a word you use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. If your argument is against making the world better in any way, I may not be a good judge for you. [2023 edit: I still sort of believe this but would also tell my past self to chill out a little.]

But since you are mostly likely a policy team about to debate a K team or vice vera, I have pulled the following sections to the top.

Topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives:

As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. I have found myself very turned off by affirmatives that defend exceptionally minor revisions to the sqo or an unwillingness to defend a large vision for social change and have been voting on T with much more regularity.

I think that the question of the value of debating the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim is key. (Put differently, what is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented?). I want to hear about why and how either teams interpretation facilitates debates over particular mechanisms for social change.

Competition in non-traditional debates:

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one possible way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify permutations and develop new ways of thinking about competition. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.

Now the rest...

The quick stuff:

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true regardless of evidence quality etc.

-I don't believe that the Aff has an absolute right to define the scope/meaning of the plan.

-For some reason, it really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX.

-My default facial expression is often a scowl – it’s not you, it’s me.

-I believe zero risk is possible (and often likely) for the purposes of deciding a debate.

-I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument.

-An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.

CP Theory:

I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cp's - I’m especially interested in the way CP's like states constrains the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.” My default is that presumption shifts aff when vs. a CP/K alt.

Critiques:

I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. I think many critiques I see are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more.

In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of "should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first" are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

T:

Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think we are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

Conditionality/judge choice:

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.

Side bias/case debate:

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.

Speaker points:

-I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

Name Sara Sanchez
Affiliation: NAUDL
School Strikes: Glenbrook South, Lexington
Last Edited: 1/21/2024, Edited for Emory 2024

General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. I have not been historically inclined to accept/reject any arguments on-face. That said, the following is true:

Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.

I would like you to be driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad evidence that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.

Clarity & Organization: This section used to be a note about speed. It was a gentle request that you keep in mind that reading 3 word theory arguments at the same rate as the cards you are reading was obviously silly and difficult to flow. I am now substantially more concerned with clarity in general. I can understand a pretty rapid rate of delivery. I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the sub-points of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While my speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices among the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. If I cannot understand large swaths of your speeches and/or you are jumping all over the flow with no attempt to answer arguments in the order they were made, your points will be low (think less than 27.5 range). If, on the other hand, I can understand almost every word of your speech, and you consistently following the line-by-line structure of the round, your points will be high (think 29-29.5 range) to ensure you have a better chance at clearing if points become an issue. If you have questions about this, please ask before the round.

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. I will also make a point to talk to your coach after the round to explain what I believe happened and why. I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).

Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.

Speaker points Apparently I needed to bump these to align with point inflation, so I have. Points probably start at a 27.5-28. Anything over 29.5 is rare, it's been years since I gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive/unethical in the round, and I'll likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.

27.5-28 Average
28.1-28.7 Good, but probably will miss on points or go 3-3
28.8-29.2 Good, chance to go 4-2 and clear low
29.2-29.5 I believe you should get a top 20 speaker award at this tournament
29.5-29.8 You were one of the most exceptional speakers I've heard in years, and should be in the top 5 speakers of this tournament.

What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if you have specific questions, ask.

Topicality/Theory: I’m more than open to these debates, I have no problem pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing interpretations. You should have an interpretation in these debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples, evidence, and comparative impacts) that your interpretation is preferable to the other team's. You should be explaining why your arguments matter and what the world of your interpretation looks like (case lists, argument ground). You should not assume that the 3-word blippy jargon we all use now is an argument, because I don't tend to think it is one. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're probably fine. That said...

Counterplans: I personally tend to error negative on a lot of theoretical CP objections when these aren't adequately debated in round (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.) I'm probably more sympathetic to objections to consult counterplans, or procedural counterplans like delay, sunsets, etc. I love specific counterplans and adore specific PICs, so you have a bit more of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args, feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional, consult, counterplans bad is more persuassive than just conditionality bad.

Condo - couple of extra notes: I think that having more than one K and one CP in the round is pushing the limit on conditionality. You would still need to do work here to earn my ballot, but it's definitely viable. I also tend to think that uniform 50 state fiat counterplans that counterplan out of all solvency deficits are not good for debate. The reason for this is that I tend to like solvency advocates for counterplans and there isn't one for those types of CPs. These are both cases where, if sufficient analysis was done, I'd be okay rejecting the team. For the record, I have not voted on either of these yet, because no one has made these args in a compelling enough way, but the potential exits.

The K: I don’t have a problem with it generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, but this isn't where I spend most of my research time. I’m also reticent to vote on “framework” in terms of "there should be no Ks in debate ever." I don't think this line of argumentation is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the arguments that are leveled against their case. I tend to believe both sides should get to weigh their impacts. I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly frustrating for me to adjudicate. Framework debates that center on the question of accurate methodology, bias and substantive education are by far more persuasive.

If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. Similarly if you're running a K aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

The above noted, I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical literature these days. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political theory/philosophy. I tend to be much more familiar with some K authors than others. I've read a decent amount of Foucault, I've read almost nothing Lacanian. In addition to Foucault I am substantially more familiar with Ks centered around IR theory, non-psychoanalytic capitalism and questions of gender and identity. I am less to not at all familiar with psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I personally lean towards believing realism inevitable type arguments and that floating PIKs are bad (reason to reject the alt). While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened, this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.

Affs that don't have topical advocacies: I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I feel as though I've been asked to objectively and neutrally evaluate a set of arguments where the people proffering those arguments in no way practice the same neutrality has always created a lot of tension for how I evaluate these arguments. To that end I offer my full disclosure of my connections to, and beliefs about, this activity. If you would like to attempt to change those biases, you are welcome to try, but the bar for such debates will be high, because I am not neutral on this.

I came back to debate 15 years ago after a brief hiatus working in politics and public policy because I firmly believe there is no stronger or more effective pedagogical tool. I have routinely been impressed by the skills and information this co-curricular activity provides for the participants that practice it. I chose a career in debate at the time because I think that teaching young people how to debate a topic while switching sides and researching policy and philosophy is one of the best things our educational system has to offer. I worked hard for my debaters, in class, after school, on weekends, and during summers because I believe this game, even with its imperfections, is good. It will be difficult for you to get my ballot if your goal for the round is to convince me that 15 years of my life and countless hours of work has been a mistake. I also see problems in this activity in terms of equity and access. There are good reasons my work after directing large debate programs focused on education policy, equity, and now urban debate. If your arguments are criticisms of debate you should take all of that into consideration when trying to win my ballot.

Topic Specific Addendum: I currently work for NAUDL, I run our national tournament, write curriculum for our coaches, attend the topic meeting every August and work on our file set each year. I judge substantially fewer rounds than I used to and have fewer conversations with friends about the direction of the topic. You should assume I'm familiar with debate arguments but you should not assume I'm super up to date on the latest topic specific acronyms or fanciness. This means a little explanation on what the NSDOQPC* is will probably be necessary if you'd like me to understand your aff/da/etc.

*(The NSDOQPC, to the best of my knowledge, is not a real thing. It's merely an example of the type of insane acronyms/topic specific jargon that gets routinely bantered about on most topics)

Additionally, while I haven't had a chance to test this yet, I'm reasonably certain my tolerance for the truly inane has lowered substantially. I now spend my days working on debate in a more education focused environment that is centered on building many strong programs rather than the TOC arms race. I also spend a bunch of my spare time working in politics and on policy and advocacy campaigns that have real world implications. I'm not entirely sure what the implication of this are for you, but if it's the pre-round and you have two strategies to choose from, one of which is asinine and one of which is more substantive, I'd bet that the more substantive one is going to work out a lot better for you.

Finally, it's been a few months since I've flowed a top speed round. I'm pretty sure I'm still fine there, but if you could keep that in mind, and ease into your top speed in speeches, it would be appreciated.

If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.

Good luck. :)

LD Specific Business

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of how I evaluate substance, impacts, etc. However, since I have judged more LD rounds recently it was time for me to clear some of this stuff up.

I spent most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I did teach two LD classes a year for seven years and I judged a large number of practice debates in class during that time. I tried to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: The way theory is debated in LD makes my head hurt. A LOT. It is rarely impacted, often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win (teeny area of the topic, frameworks and definitions that cross the border from strategic to definitionally impossible to debate, etc) it is NOT every single round. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I am not fine with paragraph after paragraph of a prioris/theory/continental philosophy read at a top speed with zero regard for clarity whatsoever. I will say clear if you are engaging in the practice above, and I will stop flowing if you don't alter your delivery to a rate I can understand after that. I will only vote on what is on my flow. I may call for evidence after the round, however, I will not call for your theory blocks because I didn't understand them. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate on that stuff for the love of all that is holy, or you will have very little chance of winning my ballot. Also see the clarity note at the top of this post. It will apply to LD as well.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Prep Time: 2 Notes. First, I like Cross-Examination. I pay attention to it and think it is strategically valuable. You should use your CX time. If you would like to ask more questions beyond CX in prep, that's cool. But please make use of CX. Second, prep time is the time you use to prep, that includes actions like giving your opponent your case or whatnot if you haven't done this in a timely manner. There are no alternate time outs or whatever. If you are reading a case off a laptop, you need to make that case available to your opponent before you start speaking OR immediately thereafter. There will not be a non-prep-time time outs while you all figure this out. That time will come from one of your prep times. In other words, if the culprit is the aff, who has not made a computerized case available to their opponent in a timely manner, then the AFF loses prep time while they get it ready for the neg, and vice versa.


Good luck, and have fun.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: semplenyc@gmail.com

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (2020 - )

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-PRESENT)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director of the New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - Present)

Debater Background
Former Debater for New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
An alumnus of the IMPACT Coalition - New York Urban Debate League (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Rounds Judged
Jack Howe is the first I will judge on this LD topic.

LD Paradigm

I've judged LD in the northeast and given my policy background, I can judge a circuit LD debate. My thoughts on LD are pretty similar to Policy given that you can run whatever you want... just make an argument and impact it. My specifics on LD (which I judge similar to Policy) is listed below.

PF Paradigm
I've been coaching PF for a few years now and to talk about my judging paradigm on PF, I would like to quote from Brian Manuel, a well-respected debate coach in the debate community when he says the following:

"This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in the debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you"


Policy Short Version:
I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I enter my fifteenth year in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due of these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is failing to explain what your argument is and not telling me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that makes no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that its a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the on-going mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

Jake Shaner

Debate Coach, Stuyvesant High School

Columbia University ‘14

Davis High School (Utah) ‘10

Policy Debate

I am a skeptical person. If you want to play to my preferences, then clash with your opponents, make strongly warranted arguments, and tell me why you deserve to win (aka role of the ballot/why you meet it best). My ideal debate is between an aff that is both strong in its foundations and unique in its approach to the topic, and a neg strategy that employs creative reads on arguments applied specifically to the 1AC.

I want to hear you debate how you debate your best - if that's a politics disad, then throw down a good story of Congressional horse-trading; if that's impact turning hegemony, then explain why multipolarity is better for stability (or better yet, why Chinese hegemony is better for world peace. I would love to hear that debate). I'm totally okay with you sitting down before time is up if there is nothing new left to say or you are just done.

I want to hear what you are good at. I like judging debates because I like to be persuaded, not because I like to hack for the politics disad, conditionality, passive nihilism, Consult Japan, or whatever other argument you only find in a policy debate. My interest in an ongoing debate has almost nothing to do with what the titles of my flow pages are, and everything to do with the execution and knowledge of the debaters themselves.

Speaker points -

Although this is just an approximation, I would bet that my 25/75 percentile in speaker points is a 27.3/28.5. For me, points below 27 demonstrates a lack of meaningful participation or logical thought, and points above 29 mark a debater who was effective, persuasive, and strategic. If I can't understand the text of your cards, you will be hard pressed to get higher than a 28.5, no matter how well the rest of the debate goes for you. I strongly believe that I should be able to follow the debate from start to finish without having to call for cards just to piece the debate back together.

Argument preferences -

Defense - I really, really like defensive argumentation - solvency deficits, internal-link takeouts, all of it is quite useful and extremely underutilized. I will vote aff/neg on presumption. I do not find the argument that ".01% risk of nuclear war means we must pass the plan at all costs" to be persuasive at all - not to say I won't vote on it but a smart debater will easily persuade me with a "this is a ridiculous framing of the issues" line of thought.

Impact Turns - these debates often promote the most clash and force debaters to think about the issues that they advocate. While I think defense is key to check argumentative stupidity, impact turns are often produce the most exciting, comparative debates. I want to see these debates, and you'll probably get higher speaker points as a result of the clash that they produce.

Topicality- Absent argumentation presented against this, I probably lean towards competing interpretations, but I don't think that I should define what the impact of the interpretation on debate is - that's the job of the debaters. As such, I have found that I rely heavily on evidence comparison in the definition debate. If you are going for topicality in the 2NR, please note that I think context, quality, and authorship really matter in your definition debates, and I think quantity is never a replacement for the above. Additionally, though I feel like this should be obvious, I don't think a topicality 2NR should be anything but topicality.

Counterplans/theory - A few notes-

1. SLOW DOWN. I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters are still making theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set.

2. Tell me why I should reject the team, or I'll default to rejecting the argument, unless its conditionality. I can be convinced process counterplans are okay to test the affirmative, but tread lightly when it comes to the more ludicrous ones (aka Consult ___).

3. I think I lean aff very slightly on conditionality. I don't think that multiple counterplans are bad, and a counterplan and a critique are probably not too much for a 2AC to handle. However, at a fundamental level, I have an issue with the neg being able to defend multiple contradictory worlds. This doesn't mean I am a sure vote for the aff in a condo debate - like I said above, one CP and one K, or two CPs, is probably not abusive in most situations. I just think its important from an ethos-level for you to know that I am sympathetic to claims about affs needing to defend against 3+ contradictory positions.

4. If you do go for a counter-advocacy in the 2NR, make it explicitly clear that I should consider the status quo as well or else my RFD will be plan vs. counter-advocacy. Consequentially, you must do the work for me to consider the status quo in addition to telling me to consider the status quo to have me vote neg.

Disads - This is mostly about the politics disad - like everyone else, I think that other well-research and well-executed disads are important and interesting arguments.

The politics/election disad could be an educational tool, if used correctly, to learn about Congress, presidential powers, whip-counts, etc. However, the only thing I've learned from judging these debates is that no one knows a thing about what they are talking about, including and especially the authors of the evidence cited in these debates. If you want to win on politics in front of me, I suggest spelling out a causal chain that is at least a little logical. If you want to beat a politics disad in front of me, attack the link; for instance, will lifting the embargo on Cuban oil actually kill the attempt to raise the debt ceiling? I would love to hear a politics disad that makes sense, but I doubt one exists, especially in the present.

Critiques - I am well-versed in nearly all K lit that is used in debate. I expect that I will know what you are talking about in any given debate. However, like I said above, this does not mean that this is what I particularly care to hear, nor does it mean that I will give you extra leeway to throw jargon and shoddy analysis around. Be specific, be thorough, and be persuasive.

Non-traditional arguments - I do have my own opinions as a participant and community member about inequality in debate and structures of power, but as a judge I seek to be a critic of argument first and foremost. I think these arguments are best presented with passion and experience tied into well-researched literature. However, I will evaluate them as I would any other argument in a debate where one team wins and another loses.

Paperless notes - Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer. I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive this year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. If you or your partner continue to prep, I will start prep again. Giving the non-speaking partner the speech is either part of prep or can happen after the other team has got the speech and the speech is starting. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer or, preferably, to grab their partner's computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

My experience from 7+ years in policy debate strongly informs my judging philosophy - I think that plans, counter-plans, and critiques are probably all good. I also have a pretty extensive background in philosophy, especially in continental philosophy, from my academic work. I did a little LD in high school, but I am pretty new to judging. I will make myself open to all arguments and styles, and I have no problem voting on any argument. That said, I think that there are a few things that I will take into a debate with me:

1. Role of the judge -  I view myself primarily as a critic of argument, in that I decide a winner and a loser based on the arguments the debaters present to me. I am much more comfortable in a well-impacted, clearly-framed debate where I am given reasons by the debaters to vote for or against the arguments. I'm unlikely to be persuaded by exclusionary framework arguments based on some kind of preservation of a norm, unless a strong defense is made for why that norm is good outside of it being the norm.

2. Speed vs. Clarity - fast debates are good. Clear debates are better. If you had to choose one or the other, SLOW DOWN. Even top-level LD competitors have major clarity issues, and you will undoubtedly be in a better position if I can understand your argument.

3. Theory - I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters make theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set. I am thoroughly unpersuaded by theory landmines. If that is your strategy for winning, expect to get low speaker points whether you win or lose the debate.

4. Depth over breadth - there isn't all that much speaking time in a single debate, I would prefer to see you exhibit your strongest critical thought rather than your most proliferated arguments. I have a slight distaste for conditionality, in that I feel a lot of sympathy for affirmatives who have to defend against contradictory positions. That said, I don't feel any sympathy for affirmatives who get out-strategized or out-teched. Take that for what you will.

5. Paperless notes - Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer. I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive last year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. If you continue to prep, I will start prep again. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.

Edited most recently in Jan 2024. I debated in high school at Greenhill School (2006) in Texas and debated in college at Michigan State (2010). I have been helping coach Greenhill since my graduation. A fair number of the assumptions that one would draw about me being affiliated with those institutions are probably true.

Case Debates – Case debate is underutilized, there are few things that I am more impressed with than beating a team on their own aff. Although, too many teams gloss over the fact that there needs to be uniqueness for neg case turns.

Disads – Defensive arguments are important, and I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad if the affirmative has damning defensive arguments even if the affirmative lacks any offensive arguments. Negatives who rely on there always being a risk of a link will leave me unimpressed. That being said though, I often think that many times a lack of offense does result in a moderate probability of the disad. Affs tend to have issues when they fail to answer turns the case arguments.

CPs – I lean negative on most CP theory issues (more on theory below), although I’m not a fan of the consult cp. I also lean negative on legitimacy of the states CP. This does not mean that affs cannot win theory debates in front of me. Additionally I think some of the arguments that affs make as to why some counterplans are bad, tend to be much better when used as a reason why the permutation is legitimate. Negs should be sure to weigh what happens when there is a solvency deficit to the cp when making their impact calculus arguments. Conversely, affs need to have an impact to their solvency deficits.

Kritiks – Teams must articulate an impact to what happens if they win their framework arguments. I don’t think the negative must have an alternative but I find it hard for the neg to establish uniqueness for their links without one. Affirmatives need to find ways to leverage their aff against the implications of the kritik as well as making sure that they are still able to access their offense if they lose their framework arguments. Negs must also discuss why the aff in particular makes the squo worse. I’m certainly not well versed in much kritik literature so avoiding buzzwords and jargon can help my understanding. If you want me to vote on a kritik, it would benefit you to debate it very much like a CP/DA: turns the case, solves the case, xyz comes first, etc.

Topicality – I tend to view T debates in an offense/defense framework. Its all about competing interpretations, whomever creates the best world for debate should win, issues of abuse are not necessary but can be helpful. That being said, I’m also not a fan of the cult of limits, just going for your interpretation is more limiting will most likely lose to a broader interpretation that is more educational. Also, your K aff's impact turn of T does not amuse me – topicality is a voting issue.

Theory – I lean neg on most theory questions but this is not to be taken to mean that I like to hear your XYZ-Spec argument, your points will go down. Conditionality, or multiple conditional counterplans are both fine. The caveat to this is that I'm not sure if I'm a fan of conditional counterplans with half a dozen planks each independently conditional (ie 2nr could be planks 1-6, or 1-3, or 1&3, etc.). This doesn’t mean I won’t vote aff on theory though, whomever can make their trivial distinctions seem most important will probably win.

Non-traditional affs – I’ve debated at Greenhill and Michigan State, if that doesn’t provide some hint, I’ll break it down some more. The Aff should probably be topical, probably have a plan, and probably also have to defend the effects stemming from the hypothetical enactment of said plan - I've yet to be convinced by a reason as to why any of these things are bad.

General Notes: All of this being said – I will evaluate the arguments made in the round even if they are contrary to my beliefs, this is a guide of what I think and how I will default with a lack of argumentation. I do like being on the email chain of documents but will NEVER be reading the speech doc during the speech – you need to be clear. I’m only going to flow what the person who should be speaking says, if your partner yells out an argument during your speech, you have not made it.

Lincoln-Douglas debate: If possible, I’d basically prefer your LD debate to be policy-esque, I can obviously follow whatever but still have no idea what a criterion is. For some reason when I say this, people seem to think theory args are a good idea....most LD theory args seem to be asinine standards that the other team needs to follow…I will not vote on this, and will probably lower your speaker points. Also, if you intend to win due to a theory argument, you need a reason to reject the team – otherwise the obvious remedy is rejecting the argument.

Director of Debate at Westminster 2013-2021, lawyer, college and high school debater before that -- but slow it down some if you want your arguments to make it to my flow, which is usually on paper.

It is unlikely that I can flow the tiny details of your pre-written blocks.

I definitely do not know the details of your politics DA or answers, or topicality arguments that were devloped from some obscure 1879 state court ruling - please understand that I am evaluating your argument based on what you say in the round, although I will look at cards if you give me reason to.

Don't assume, and explain well.

Quick thoughts:

1) Make your speeches flowable. I will not be able to flow (and likely will not catch) all the details if you are reading pre-written blocks at top speed with no breaks or changes in inflection. If you're going to read blocks, try to at least pretend you're not reading blocks by having breaks between arguments, emphasizing tags, slowing it down a little on analytics, etc. You are also a lot more likely to hold my attention to details and help me not miss stuff that way. I will reward your speaker points if you do a good job of this.

You would be shocked at how many "good" judges think the same thing about block-reading and the above advice, and how little some judges are flowing, or even catching, of what you think you said.

2) I disagree with approaches that make the personal identity of the debaters in the round relevant to the decision in the debate, especially for high-school-aged students, and I am also not a good judge for these debates because I often do not understand what the judge is being asked to vote for. This does not mean you can't read K arguments or arguments about race or identity, in fact there are many K arguments that I think are true and make a lot of sense, I just don't think a teacher should in the position of ratifying or rejecting the personal identity or experiences of a teenager.

3) "Death good" is a reason to reject the team, and I may auto-vote that way even if the opponent doesn't make the argument.

4) There needs to be a fair stasis point in order to have good debates. Debate is good.

5) Theory: You are really taking your chances if you rely on a sketchy CP that requires winning a lot of theory, because I do not spend a lot of time outside of debate rounds thinking about theory. I can't tell you which way I will come down on a particular theory issue because it usually depends on what is said -- and what I flow -- in that particular round. This applies to T debates and other theory debates too.

6) If it is pretty close between the CP and the aff (or even if it isn't close), you need to give some really clear comparative explanations about why I should choose one over the other -- which you should do for any judge but make sure you do it when I'm judging.

7) I really dislike high theory and post-modernism in debate.

8) Reading cards to decide the debate: For many years I tried to judge without looking at the speech documents during the speeches, but I have recently concluded that is unrealistic because there is an entire additional level of the debate that is happening between the debaters in the speech documents. I don't think it should be that way, but I understand why it is happening. However, if the claims made about a card or set of cards are uncontested by the opponent, I am likely to assume when deciding the debate that the cards say what their reader claimed they say rather than reading both sides' cards or any of the cards.

9) I am not at all deep in the files and evidence especially for most neg arguments, so I am really judging the debate based on what you say and what your cards say as you present them in the round.

9) Links and impact calculus are really, really important, especially in the last rebuttals. However, I think lengthy pre-written overviews are not as good as 2NR/2AR (and prior) explanations based on what actually happened in the particular debate.

Lexington ‘11, Harvard ‘15

Email: ttate@glenbrook225.org

I had a much longer judging paradigm when it was on the old wiki but I will try to give you the highlights.

I was an active Director of Debate at GBS from 2003-2014. I would judge a significantly high number of rounds each year (both on the regional and national circuit). Since 2014, I have still been active in debate. I used to teach the Debate classes at South, teach at Institute, and watched practice debates. I don't judge many rounds at tournaments since I don't travel much anymore. I would say that my technical flowing abilities are at about 80% of what they were when I was judging 100+ rounds a year. I am not actively involved in the literature base in regards to research.

What does that mean to you?

1 - I don't have many preconceived notions entering the debates about which team is having a more successful season or what arguments are the cool/hip thing. That can be good and bad for you. :)

2- I would consider myself a moderate right judge in regards to policy vs. K debates. Here is the thing - I am very liberal in my beliefs and academia, especially in regards to issues of identity. My Masters' thesis was a black women's criticism of mainstream feminist discourse. I will often understand and believe many K arguments in front of me. The question is whether the arguments presented in front of me provides an opportunity for deliberative dialogue between two opposing teams. Convince me of that in round (and many have), you will find me to be more left-leaning in regards to K arguments than people perceive.

3 - I love a good Politics debate that has super recent evidence and an interesting spin to a typical politics story.

4 - I believe coming into the debate that uniqueness drives the direction of the link.

5 - I default Negative coming in to many debates in regards to CP theory and competition issues.

6 - I have a high standard for both evidence and what makes for a complete argument.

Former debater at Harvard and Westminster. It has been a few years since I was very actively involved with the activity, the last few years my involvement with debate has consisted of judging ~5 rounds a year and remaining lightly connected to the teams of the schools I attended. Do with that information as you will.

Mostly putting an emphasis on things I suspect might be idiosyncratic:

I think offense-defense is substantially overrated. It is one thing if the debaters argue successfully for it, but I think the a lot of the time a cruxy argument can be a defensive argument that proves one of the two impact/offense stories is substantially more true/probable than the other. I have also voted on entirely defense multiple times if I thought a team was proving the opponents sources of offense were indistinguishable from statistical noise.

I increasingly think there is an overemphasis on evidence in debate, especially if the evidence being talked about is really just an oped take or the like. In many cases the debaters just making the arguments directly would be equally persusasive, and I think that is fine. Just make analytical warrants yourself.

I don't think politics disads are intrinsic, and are generally inconsistent with the negative having CPs. Don't think I've ever voted on this though.

In theory debates in general, I find I value arguments about predictability and whether or not you have a coherent idea of what debate is / should be over very tactical arguments about which interpretation is more fair. Arguing about what common-sense argument a debate-theoretical construct like a perm or a particular CP amounts to, and why that is an argument that needs to be in our lexicon, is I think a good approach.

I didn't go for Ks very much when I debated, but I think empirically my judging record is something close to 50-50, though on a probably skewed sample. I enjoy Ks of the aff/negs scholarship or proposal or assumptions what have you moreso than I do discussions about debate itself.

Emma Thompson

Davis High School '11
Columbia University '15

I debated for Davis High School for four years, and competed fairly extensively on the national circuit . I now attend Columbia University and assist the Stuyvesant High School debate team. As such, I feel comfortable hearing pretty much any debate.

How I Judge:
You have the freedom to run whatever you choose, but things like impact calculus and framing issues cannot be undercovered. I probably fall in the tech over truth side of that question, not in the sense that meta-framing does not matter (explained above), but in the sense that dropped arguments are true arguments all the time, even if it's something incredibly ridiculous like genocide good.

I'll list my argument preferences below, but as explained above, these defaults are probably more about how much I like you as a critic of argument and not so much as whether or not you will win the day:

Theory - I am pretty neg-biased on nearly all theory debates. I think conditionality is guaranteed, multiple conditional worlds are probably okay, and a counterplan can probably either be textually or functionally competitive, though preferably both. I am more likely to be persuaded that contradictory arguments are bad for debate rather than that one CP and one K is too much for the aff to handle. That being said, I like a good theory debate with in round analysis and I will vote on theory, especially if it is dropped.

Topicality - I think topicality is a good weapon in the neg arsenal. Play it smart and read good interpretations and counter-interpretations. A terrible topicality debate is probably the most boring, inane debate to judge.

Disads - Good, read them. Politics disads aren't the most educational but they are very important to a negative arsenal, and I don't have any preferences for or against them as an argument. As far as aff answers, I think defense is hardly ever used and a good defense is just as fine for me as lots of link turns/ impact turns. 

Counterplans - Explained above, but basically, counterplans are important and multiple counterplans are fine. I don't have any hatred for process counterplans.

Kritiks - Win the framing issues. I think excluding critiques on the negative is pretty ridiculous but if your strat as an aff is a framework 2AC, then go for it I suppose. I tend to prefer frameworks which allow both the aff and the K to get their impacts.

Nontrad/Performance - No particular inclination for or against this style of debate.

17 years of debate exp.

Former college debater/coach, NDT octofinals. Last 3 to 4 years coaching public forum in China.
I was a K debater in college 2007-2012, but I'm more likely to think topic relevance matters if its not plan passage. I've been all over the ideological spectrum debate wise I think.

Arjun Vellayappan
Lexington 2011
Northwestern 2015

You should go for what you are good at despite any of the preferences I may list below. At the end of the day, I will vote for the team that did the better debating on any issue although you may get better speaker points if you continue reading.

Important point to note: I know very little about the topic and it's development so please take time to avoid topic jargon and try to avoid using abbreviations until you explain their original meaning. This also implicates T mostly because I won't really know specific trends in the community so try to spend extra time painting that picture if you think it's important to winning your argument.

Evidence comparison, whether it is using qualifications or warrants, is extremely important for resolving important questions in debates and for preventing judge intervention when calling for cards. I’m pretty new to judging so I imagine I’ll be reading a decent amount of evidence, but comparison will be important for framing how I read your cards. 

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. Don’t cheat in any fashion, clip cards, cut cards out of context, etc. 

Argument Issues

Topicality – It is a voting issue. I don’t think there needs to be demonstrated “in-round abuse” as long as the negative is providing a strong limits argument that frames how the topic would be different. I think affirmatives currently under-utilize reasonability and that it should be in almost every T 2AR. I was not a big fan of T debates in high school but that was mostly because they lacked comparative impact calculus of which standards matter more (eg. What matters more: education or limits?). If you can do that, I’m a fine judge for T. 

Theory – I usually think theory arguments are reasons to reject the practice, not the team but can definitely be persuaded otherwise if the arguments are presented well. I also tend to default to conditionality meaning that the status quo is always an option for the negative unless this issue is contested in the round. 

CPs – I lean slightly aff on most CP theory questions (mandates/outcomes, consult, etc) but can be persuaded otherwise. I'm more OK with conditionality than I am with "cheating" CPs but obviously it depends on the specific situation.

Kritiks – I’m fine with most K debates but I’m probably not the best judge for you if you generally roll with super-generic K’s and don’t interact with the aff very well. That being said, I understand the literature for the most part and am fine voting quickly on a dropped framework or floating PIK argument. I find that most K debates are won by specific and more detailed negative analysis combined with some "K tricks", so if you’re aff make sure you have a robust defense of what you're saying and you answer things like “method comes first” or “turns case” if you want to win my ballot. 

Performance – I think you need to defend a topical plan or at least relate to the topic and be ready to defeat framework because that type of argument is persuasive to me against aff’s that blatantly avoid the topic. I probably have somewhat of a bias against these types of arguments because I generally think topic-centric debate is awesome and educational but obviously will decide based on the arguments put in front of me rather than my predispositions.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vijay%2C+Madhu

Jon Voss

Northside College Prep

I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform, the Water Resources, and NATO topics. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."

Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- fiscal redistribution topic - I heard a few debates on it before the season started but (as of the early season tournaments) you should consider my topic knowledge extremely limited, especially as it relates to topicality norms and complex explanations of fringe economic theories. I do have a basic understanding of the academic concepts that undergird the topic, however, and I will be somewhat involved in argument production this year.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on <other thing>. I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read itand explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- I don't need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

-Speech times are 9 minutes for constructives, 6 minutes for rebuttals, and 3 minutes for CX. Prep is determined by tournament invite. Each debater should give one constructive and one rebuttal, with only one debater giving each speech. 

-Note on CX: you get 3 minutes of CX time. If you ask the other team clarification questions during prep (“Did you read this card?” “Can you confirm your CP text?” etc), it would be pretty rude of them not to answer, but I will not flow this/treat it as argument-development time like CX.  

-I will use my ballot to decide the debate in front of me. Debaters can advance various criteria for how I should evaluate that debate, but I can’t render a decision on the basis of something that did not occur in the debate I have been watching.

-Be transparent about your evidence. The other team should receive the same speech documents that I do. That doesn’t mean you are obligated to include analytical arguments – people should also flow! Also, mark stuff during the speech, you probably aren’t going to remember each word you stopped at once the speech is over. 

A few argument leanings:

-I am pretty convinced that competitive debate requires a point of stasis. That doesn’t mean I think there is only one way to read/interpret the resolution, but it does mean that I am most persuaded by affs that relate themselves to the resolution in a way that they can argue provides predictable points of contestation for the neg. In short, Predictability/Argument Testing Good > Policymaking Good.

-I like plan/CP texts with some specificity. If your plan text is just a re-printing of the resolution, it will probably annoy me. If a team is vague about their advocacy, I am more likely to give the other team leeway in interpreting how it would play out through evidence.

-I am more sympathetic than average to aff theoretical objections (conditionality and multi-actor fiat stand out). If theory debates reflect well thought-out visions of debate rather than regurgitation of stock phrases, then I actually enjoy them.

-I can be persuaded that theory arguments are a reason to reject the team, and not simply the argument, if persuasive reasons are given. However, my default position is always to reject the argument (conditionality is an exception; rejecting the argument would make it conditional, so teams are encouraged to explain an alternative remedy), unless a developed warrant is made to the contrary. 

A couple general reflections on my judging:

-I think I care more about evidence than I did a few years ago. Debate requires skill in framing arguments and making comparisons, but also in finding good evidence to support your claims. Obviously I prefer to watch debaters do good evidence comparison, but it’s often hard to fully interrogate every piece of evidence in the debate. If a team has invested good effort in evidence comparison, I will try to extend their skepticism in a limited fashion as I read other evidence after the debate.

-I give the best points to debaters who have a good big-picture strategic vision of the debate and how the relevant arguments interact. If debaters invest their time in the right places and explain their strategic decision-making, I am more likely to view the debate the way they would like.